Datasets:

CharlieJi

/

Newsroom

like 0

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

John Avlon voter turnout in the is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file , a bad omen for the GOP .

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

In New Hampshire , the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012 , compared with 241,000 four years before , despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47 % of the total turnout in 2012 , according to CNN exit polls .

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage of your oil news

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

turnout numbers are even of registered republicans in each state that has voted to date.but the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates.the by professional partisan operatives all day long , but the fact remains -- voters just are n't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012 . follow cnn opinion on twitter . join the

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

the turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered republicans in each state that has voted to date.but the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates.the bottom line is that voter turnout matters .

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

the turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered republicans in each state that has voted to date.but the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates.the bottom line .

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida. Fewer voters than expected turned out. Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down. I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election. Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago. Even with months of pre-primary hype and attention solely devoted to the Republican field, turnout in this election cycle essentially flat-lined. In Iowa, a little more than 121,000 people voted, compared with nearly 119,000 four years before, when action in the Democratic caucuses absorbed most of the attention. In New Hampshire, the same dynamic applied -- 245,000 voters turned out in 2012, compared with 241,000 four years before, despite Republicans being the only game in town and independents making up 47% of the total turnout in 2012, according to CNN exit polls. Take out the independent voters and you've got a deep net decline. Always proudly rebellious, South Carolina has been the great outlier in this election cycle. With Newt Gingrich making an all-out push for conservatives in a conservative state, turnout was up almost 150,000 over four years before. But in Florida, the decline became unmistakable. Maybe it decreased because the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, plus super PACS, spent more than $18 million in the Sunshine State on TV ads, of which 93% were negative in the last week alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. After all, negative ads depress turnout. But after all the mud was thrown, 1.6 million people turned out in the nation's fourth largest state, which might sound impressive until you compare it with the nearly 2 million who turned out in 2008. Nevada was even worse, with 32,894 people turning out to vote in a state with more than 465,000 registered Republicans. Four years before, more than 44,300 participated in the caucus. Turnout was down more than 25% despite the GOP caucuses being the only game in town. Party officials were expecting a turnout of more than 70,000. All this should be a wake-up call for the GOP. Despite an enormous amount of national media attention devoted to each of the states to date, the response has been a notable yawn among the Republican rank and file. The turnout numbers are even worse when you compare them with the number of registered Republicans in each state that has voted to date. The caucuses in particular bring out an unrepresentative sample of a state's Republican Party. For all the grass-roots romanticism, there has got to be a better way to pick a presidential nominee. But the news is worst for Romney, long the presumptive front-runner in a party that tends to reward the man next in line. "Reluctantly Romney" could be a bumper sticker, even for his supporters. The former Massachusetts governor has found it difficult to climb above 35% in national polls, meaning that a majority of Republicans still support someone else in a notably weak field. His vote margins and totals lag behind those of four years before, when he lost the nomination to John McCain in a crowded and comparatively competent field, although Minnesota is the first state he won in '08 and lost in 2012. You reap what you sow, and part of the reason turnout is down is directly related to the problem of polarization. The Republican Party is more ideologically polarized than at any time in recent history. Therefore, it put up more purely right-wing candidates than it did four years before, when center-right leaders such as McCain and Rudy Giuliani were also in the race. A bigger tent inspired bigger turnout. But the other reason is simple dissatisfaction with the candidates. Republicans seem united in their anger against the president -- like the Democrats in 2004 -- but they are uninspired by their options. Draft movements for fantasy candidates ranging from Chris Christie to Mitch Daniels to Paul Ryan and even Jeb Bush have started and failed. Some party leaders show more enthusiasm for a hypothetical 2016 crop of candidates, including Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, than they do for the flawed choices before them in this election. Divided and dispirited is an odd place for the Republican Party to be so soon after the enthusiasms of the 2010 tea party-driven election. The bottom line is that voter turnout matters. And what should be most troubling for Republicans is that this enthusiasm gap among the conservative base is accompanied by a lack of candidates who might appeal to independents and centrist swing voters in the general election. It is a double barrel of bad news for the Republican Party. The numbers can be spun and rationalized by professional partisan operatives all day long, but the fact remains -- voters just aren't turning out to cast their votes for this crop of conservative candidates in 2012. Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter. Join the conversation on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

A worker sets up a polling station the morning of the GOP primary in Florida . Fewer voters than expected turned out . Editor 's note : John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast .

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

On television nowadays , drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval . And there is no better example than the Esquire Network , which began in September and has several tough - sounding new series , including '' Boundless , '' '' Knife Fight '' and '' Brew Dogs , '' that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals . The stars of the Esquire Network are long - distance runners , chefs , beer brewers , fashion gurus and actors , but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger : wine , Champagne , craft beer , vodka , scotch , tequila shots , moonshine and even absinthe .

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

The Esquire Network has a of lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals .

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

And there is no better example than the Esquire Network , which began in September and has several tough - sounding new series , including '' Boundless , '' '' Knife Fight '' and '' Brew Dogs , '' that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals .

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

network , '' `` knife fight '' brew the , he , he , he scotch , tequila shots , moonshine the preferred local term , a `` bru '' which , the , he kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail . `` mom '' the

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

on television nowadays , drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval . '' there is no better example than the esquire network , which began in september and has several tough-sounding new series .

On television nowadays, drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval. And there is no better example than the Esquire Network, which began in September and has several tough-sounding new series, including "Boundless," "Knife Fight" and "Brew Dogs," that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of moneyed metrosexuals. The stars of the Esquire Network are long-distance runners, chefs, beer brewers, fashion gurus and actors, but they all talk about their next drink with relish and swagger: wine, Champagne, craft beer, vodka, scotch, tequila shots, moonshine and even absinthe. It's not so much thirst that drives the conversation on cable as it is male insecurity. For many channels, but especially for Esquire, which is trying to avoid being dismissed as Lifetime for men, alcohol is the badge of belonging, a liquid demonstration of youthful hipness, New Age machismo, and of being a "dude" or a "bro" or, as a South African canoe champion says on "Boundless," using the preferred local term, a "bru" (which,as it happens, rhymes with brew). A few women are allowed in the club. Aisha Tyler, an actress who is the celebrity tour guide of a recent episode of "The Getaway," chose Paris as her weekend destination because, as she put it, "I want to eat beautiful food and drink myself silly." She does. That kind of barroom boasting is not quite as common on network television anymore; many of the kinds of shows that once celebrated binge drinking, if only to seem as racy as premium cable, have backed off a bit. A key plotline of the new season of "Chicago Fire" (NBC) involves the widow of a young fireman who kills her friend in a drunken-driving incident and goes to jail. "Mom" is a new CBS comedy about a mother-and-daughter team of former addicts who are in Alcoholics Anonymous. After Charlie Sheen left "Two and a Half Men," on CBS, the creator killed off his hard-drinking character. (That may have been too cold turkey: this season, the writers introduced his daughter, who seems to have inherited some of her father's bad habits.) The restraint is relative, and not necessarily a sign that a Puritan revival is spreading across networks. The message that drinking and driving don't mix has sunk in, certainly, but mostly, alcohol jokes seem old hat, and writers prefer the once taboo subjects of marijuana and masturbation. The Esquire Network has to compete with more established cable brands like Bravo and Discovery. Esquire magazine, of course, has a well-established identity, but even it is often defined by what it's not: Playboy without the centerfolds, The New Yorker without the writers. Most of Esquire's television fare offers tamer escapism than hit series like "The Deadliest Catch." And it is far less gonzo than almost anything on Vice, a magazine with a YouTube offshoot that is sometimes carried by HBO and offers off-kilter documentaries about places like North Korea. On Esquire, drinking is the bond that assures viewers that, however fit, disciplined and refined, its heroes are still very much the lads. (Also, some of the top sponsors include Jose Cuervo and Grey Goose vodka.) The hosts of "Boundless," two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party. "Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started," one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1. "Brew Dogs" doesn't need to work as hard to press the point. It's a show that follows James Watt and Martin Dickie, two young Scottish craft brewers, as they travel across America, seeking unusual ways to create artisanal beers. (The Proclaimers' song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" isn't their theme song, but it should be.) Perhaps because there is nothing quite as tedious as a man describing the nuanced notes of hops, the Scots go to macho extremes, including brewing a Colonial-style ale with corn, molasses and elements distilled from a copy of the Declaration of Independence, while atop a float in a Fourth of July parade in Pottstown, Pa. (They also coax a young woman fresh from yoga class to sip their doughnut-flavored beer while doing the downward dog.) Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of "Knife Fight," describes his series as "a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition" that pits chefs against each other in an "after-hours war zone." (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.) And sure enough, on this cooking show, eating well is an excuse to drink heavily. As a rowdy crowd cheers them on, rival chefs drink shots and fiercely whip up delicacies like braised goat ribs with yogurt and pomegranate. In one episode, John Herndon, who got his start as a flair bartender and still likes to set cocktails and dishes on fire, takes on Trevor Rocco. Mr. Rocco prepares by eating breakfast eggs. "Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink," he explains. In November, Esquire plans to introduce more shows, including "Best Bars in America" and "White Collar Brawler," in which yuppie-esque lawyers, accountants and bankers are taught to box like real men. They may have to take a punch. They almost certainly will learn how to use a punch bowl.

on television nowadays , drinking is the password for anyone desperate for social approval than the esquire network , which began in september and has several tough-sounding boundless , '' `` knife fight '' and `` brew dogs , '' that are actually lifestyle shows genteel enough to appeal to the probable target audience of the esquire network are no better example than the esquire network , which is no better .

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

Though it may feel out of the way -- far , far east on the Lower East Side -- there 's no missing American Realness once you get there . In its seventh edition , this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly , its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center , home to most of the festival 's 18 boundary - blurring productions . It does n't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating , even as it champions the fresh , the unseen , the unexpected .

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

The seventh edition of this annual of contemporary performance a piece that you of dance as undomesticated wildlife .

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor , Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters -- international curators and producers in the market for new work -- which returns each year like a recurring dream , or nightmare , depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art .

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

the capitals have announced the schedule and roster for next week ’s development camp .

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

lower east side -- there 's no missing american realness once you get there . in its seventh edition , this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly , its name projected in big block letters on the facade of abrons productions . it does n't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating , even as it champions the

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly , its name projected in big block letters on the facade of abrons arts center , home to most of the festival 's 18 boundary-blurring productions .

Though it may feel out of the way — far, far east on the Lower East Side — there's no missing American Realness once you get there. In its seventh edition, this annual festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly, its name projected in big block letters on the facade of Abrons Arts Center, home to most of the festival's 18 boundary-blurring productions. It doesn't take much to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating, even as it champions the fresh, the unseen, the unexpected. At opening night on Thursday, visitors were guided from show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to the public. For anyone well acquainted with Abrons, as many Realness-goers are, this proved a simple, effective way to reinvent familiar spaces. Masterminded by Thomas Benjamin Snapp Pryor, Realness coincides with the citywide conference of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters — international curators and producers in the market for new work — which returns each year like a recurring dream, or nightmare, depending on your relationship to the idea of shopping for live art. Last year's festival was full of work bemoaning the economic plight of performers; this year's first two productions struck out in less sullen directions, while still folding in some self-reflexive critique (also available in the form of Realness swag declaring, "I Suffer From Realness"). First was "Culture Administration & Trembling," a biodiverse collaboration among the performers Jennifer Lacey, Antonija Livingstone, Dominique Pétrin and Stephen Thompson. Ticket holders were instructed to remove their shoes, then led to the second floor of the arts complex, where a usually drab lobby had been transformed with geometric and botanical designs on the floor and walls. Ms. Lacey, Ms. Livingstone, Mr. Thompson and Dana Michel crawled languidly around the asymmetrical room, the audience huddled around the perimeter, to a soundscape of intermittent bird song. Ms. Pétrin appeared just as calmly immersed in her task of adorning the ground with origami squares. Three live snakes, delivered from offstage, soon joined in. Humans and reptiles slid over and around one another. This was just the first of many tenuously related, increasingly chaotic episodes, including the arrival of two Chihuahuas (the snakes, not to worry, had exited) and a migration into the adjacent black-box theater for a ritualistic ringing of hand-held bells. A mysterious voice, accompanying a video projection, pronounced, "This piece will not save us." Ms. Lacey, cradling a small, three-legged dog while bending and stretching her limbs, told a story about an artist and an institution (Realness, perhaps) trying to spice up their relationship like old lovers. What to do with all this information? I thought of dance as undomesticated wildlife, of the predators and prey involved in buying and selling performance. Down one set of stairs and up another, in a tucked-away dance studio not often used for performances, the choreographer Heather Kravas, visiting from Seattle, offered the New York premiere of "dead, disappears." Ms. Kravas was her own predator and protector in this stark, self-punishing solo, as she put herself through perilous paces inspired by the sculptor Richard Serra's "Verb List," a series of actions that he associated with making his pieces. What seemed at first like arbitrary acts of masochism — walking on tiptoe with a trash bag over her head while barking two-syllable phrases — deepened into a formidable exploration of language, the female body and the power play between them. Having duct-taped a pillow to a chair, as if it were a prisoner, Ms. Kravas pounded it with a long pole, shouting a list of alphabetized verbs, one per swipe. By the end, in whatever this struggle had been, she had secured the upper hand. American Realness continues through Jan. 17. Most performances are at Abrons Arts Center, 466 Grand Street, Manhattan; 866-811-4111, americanrealness­.com. A version of this review appears in print on January 9, 2016, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audacious Movements and Slitherings. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

though it may feel out of the way -- far , far east on the lower east side -- there 's no missing american realness once you get there champions the festival of contemporary performance announces itself boldly , its name projected in big block letters on the association of performing arts center , home to most of the festival 's 18 boundary-blurring productions was full of show to show through stairwells and hallways generally closed to inject new life into an event sometimes at risk of stagnating arts center , where a recurring dream , or nightmare , depending on your relationship to the form of the arts complex , the unexpected .

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

new york -- ruben tejada thinks chase utley said he 's no longer upset over it . using a blue cane adorned with a mets logo giving to him by the message utley sent him through captain david wright . tejada might never respond to utley . but he 's not angry . '' i 'm really happy we 're here and he 's home , '' tejada said he needs to be a walking boot for two more weeks , but vows he

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

ruben tejada thinks chase utley 's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty [UNK] about the play for the first time since utley ended tejada season in game 2 of the nl division series against the los angeles dodgers .

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

new york -- ruben tejada thinks chase utley 's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty . speaking about the play for the first time since utley ended tejada 's season in game 2 of the nl division series against the los angeles dodgers , late slide that broke his right leg was dirty .

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley 's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty . Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada 's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers , the Mets shortstop said he 's no longer upset over it . Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team 's owners , Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series .

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

Ruben Tejada a leg a slide .

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada 's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers , the Mets shortstop said he 's no longer upset over it .

NEW YORK -- Ruben Tejada thinks Chase Utley's late slide that broke his right leg was dirty. Speaking about the play for the first time since Utley ended Tejada's season in Game 2 of the NL Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mets shortstop said he's no longer upset over it. Using a blue cane adorned with a Mets logo giving to him by the team's owners, Tejada hung out with teammates in the dugout before Game 4 of the World Series. He says he's come to terms with what happened, even though he never responded to the message Utley sent him through captain David Wright. Tejada might never respond to Utley. But he's not angry. ''I'm really happy we're here and he's home,'' Tejada said. Tejada said he needs to be in a walking boot for two more weeks, but vows he'll be ready for spring training.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage of intuitive surgical , including articles , videos , photos , and quotes .

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

Most people , asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years , would likely think of militarization , calls for community policing , or perhaps the slow decline of '' broken windows '' . But from the turn of the millennium to date , arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called '' less - lethal '' electric control devices ( ECD ) , which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer : Taser International . The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States ' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies .

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

The in the law enforcement has an -- and perhaps --

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that , every day , predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which '' civilized '' whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder , only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives .

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

brand name taser enough to attempt . `` elephant shooting in africa ! my ! with my new electric rifle ... what a fellow could n't do in the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt . `` elephant shooting existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents . this scheme has begun to decline because of the us , float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

the brand name taser has become as synonymous with these devices as kleenex or xerox have to photocopies and tissues -- a quirk of language known as a `` proprietary eponym '' . '' or `` tasered '' .

Most people, asked to identify the most universal shift in law enforcement over the past 15 years, would likely think of militarization, calls for community policing, or perhaps the slow decline of "broken windows". But from the turn of the millennium to date, arguably no development has been more widespread in law enforcement than the adoption of so called "less-lethal" electric control devices (ECD), which many people know by the name of their most prolific manufacturer: Taser International. The company currently supplies their weapons to 17,800 of the United States' roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The brand name Taser has become as synonymous with these devices as Kleenex or Xerox have to photocopies and tissues – a quirk of language known as a "proprietary eponym". The word has even become a verb, as people commonly speak of being "Tased" or "Tasered". The word Taser, though, didn't start with the company: it's actually a loose acronym of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. Jack Cover, the inventor of the modern ECD, named his prototype after the YA sci-fi novel he loved, and the very idea for a less-lethal electric gun was largely inspired by the fictional one described in the book. And while this quirky history is known among some in law enforcement and engineering circles, the innocence with which it's told – a curious inventor culling inspiration from the literature of his youth – belies a more sinister truth: the book itself is boldly racist. Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, published in New York in 1911 under the pen name Victor Appleton, is typical of the literature of its time: an imperialist adventure tale set against the backdrop of a wild and dark African continent. In it, the protagonist, Tom Swift, develops an electric rifle – a totally novel idea in 1911 – and decides to test it in Africa in the hunt for ivory. Africa, in the context of the book, exists only as a frontier of underexploited resources ripe for the wealth accumulation of white men daring enough to attempt. "Elephant shooting in Africa! My! With my new electric rifle ... what a fellow couldn't do in the dark continent!" "With the price of ivory soaring," says Swift's veteran hunting companion, "there's a chance for us all to get a lot of money." While this unabashed entrepreneurial imperialism tends to read as a relic of a bygone age, today disproportionately white police departments in places like Ferguson, Missouri, often function similarly as the adventurers sent to do the dangerous work of this kind of wealth generation. Like in the book, black communities are often seen not as dynamic places where people live lives, but as sites for plunder. Take, for example, the Department of Justice's March report on the prevalence of predatory, revenue-based policing in St Louis County: entire municipalities there, as elsewhere in the US, float their operating budgets and justify their own existence on the racially biased extraction of statutory fees from primarily black residents. This scheme has only begun to decline because of the protests and organizing that defined Ferguson in the wake of Mike Brown's death. In the book, as in America today, the black people are rendered as either passive, simple and childlike, or animalistic and capable of unimaginable violence. They are described in the book at various points as "hideous in their savagery, wearing only the loin cloth, and with their kinky hair stuck full of sticks", and as "wild, savage and ferocious ... like little red apes". Swift and his travel companions quickly determine the blacks, scarcely human, need to be controlled, guided or killed as determined by the more "civilized" white outsiders. Consider then how quickly the black people of Ferguson were rendered something less than fully human in the wake of Mike Brown's killing: an on-duty Ferguson police officer, a former NYPD commissioner and a popular actor all spared no time in invoking the discourse of "animals" in reference to black protesters. Near and far, incredulous commentators sought to cast the police as the sole defenders of black communities, and the only thing standing between those communities and self-destruction. "White police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Meet the Press last November. Echoing Swift's rank paternalism, he later added: "I probably saved more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of this city." In the book, when Swift and his companions proudly use their advanced weapons – particularly the electric rifle – to dispatch with an incoming buffalo stampede, they too happily celebrate themselves as saviors. "Had it not been for the white men, the native village, which consisted of only frail huts, would have been completely wiped out by the animals," the novel reads. Being named after a racist book doesn't make a company or device racist, any more than a person being named after a racist relative makes them so. A name is just that – and a Taser on its face is no more racist than the city or state of Washington are, simply for being named after our slaveholding first president. But as recent campus activism in places such as Harvard and Princeton have demonstrated, there is real value in coming to terms with the bigotry embedded in the seemingly innocuous names and symbols of even our most ordinary, and aspirationally colorblind, institutions. Being aware of the history of the word Taser should make us pause and consider that, every day, predominantly white police officers walk into predominantly black communities armed with weapons first imagined in a book in which "civilized" whites entered the black wilds for the purpose of plunder, only to cast themselves as the saviors of the natives. It isn't meaningless that today that sequence sometimes appears to persist in reverse.

the brand name taser has become as synonymous with these devices as kleenex or xerox have to photocopies and tissues -- a quirk of language known as a `` proprietary eponym exists only as a verb , as people commonly speak of being `` tased '' .

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

For the first time in Golden Globes history , not one of the traditional big four networks -- NBC , CBS , ABC and FOX -- received a nomination for best comedy or musical series . Even that reliable hoover - upper of awards , Modern Family , failed to make the list , with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW ( Jane the Virgin ) , HBO ( Silicon Valley , Girls ) and web - based shows ( Orange Is The New Black , Transparent ) . It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts -- Amazon , nominated with Transparent , only released their first original series in 2013 -- and also the demise of the once - redoubtable network sitcom .

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

Web series are , The Good Wife is - snubbed , The is snubbed and it 's for The Affair and Jane the Virgin

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

There was much discussion around last year 's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife '' snub '' , when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod ( though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award ) .

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

at years , videos of the key of former former news california , the <UNK> - <UNK> - <UNK> highlights his plan

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

cbs , abc and fox -- received a nomination for best comedy or musical series . even that reliable hoover-upper of awards , modern family , failed to make the relatively young network addition the virgin ) , hbo ( silicon valley , girls ) and web-based shows ( orange the

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

for the first time in golden globes history , not one of the traditional big four networks -- nbc , cbs , abc and fox received a nomination for best comedy or musical series .

For the first time in Golden Globes history, not one of the traditional big four networks – NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX – received a nomination for best comedy or musical series. Even that reliable hoover-upper of awards, Modern Family, failed to make the list, with the nods going instead to the relatively young network addition The CW (Jane the Virgin), HBO (Silicon Valley, Girls) and web-based shows (Orange Is The New Black, Transparent). It tells us a lot about both the remarkable rise of the internet upstarts – Amazon, nominated with Transparent, only released their first original series in 2013 – and also the demise of the once-redoubtable network sitcom. And, given the quality of many of the fall additions – Mulaney, Bad Judge – it's a situation that might not change any time soon.‬ The outstanding Showtime drama, which stars Ruth Wilson and Dominic West as the participants in the titular affair, both telling their side of the story as they saw it, hasn't been a ratings smash, though figures have been rising as the first season progresses. The nods for Wilson, West and the big one, best drama series (where it is the only debut season to compete) are a vote of confidence for its sheer quality – it's a grownup, sophisticated drama that deserves the love, much like Masters of Sex last time. This hasn't been a solid show since its first season, and yet somehow it's nominated for best drama series again, alongside the vastly superior Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, The Affair and House of Cards. Sorry about that, America. And while we're at it: Ricky Gervais for Derek? Sorry about that, too. There was much discussion around last year's Emmys and a perceived Good Wife "snub", when the truly brilliant fifth season failed to get a best drama series nod (though Julianna Margulies did eventually walk away with a best actress award). At the Golden Globes, The Good Wife is emphatically included: best drama, best actress for Margulies and a much-deserved best supporting actor for Alan Cumming. Of course Christine Baranski should have been up for best supporting actress and Josh Charles best actor, but you can't win 'em all. For the fourth year in a row, TV's most-watched show has been ignored by voters: 2010 remains the only year it was in the running for best drama series. That wouldn't have been an issue when the show was a shuffling, brainless mess, as it has been in previous seasons, but the most recent has been picking up critical plaudits as well as viewers' eyeballs. Its absence leaves the Globes open to accusations of snobbery. This CW show, which tells the story of a religious young woman who is accidentally inseminated, pays homage to the telenovela format and comes off as original, heartfelt and surprisingly charming. It's this year's true underdog, picking up nominations for best comedy and best comedy actress for lead Gina Rodriguez. A quick glance at the full list of nominations shows just how A-list and Hollywood TV has become: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Clive Owen, Viola Davis, Kevin Spacey, Frances McDormand, Matthew McConaughey, Billy Bob Thornton, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Kathy Bates, Jon Voight and Bill Murray have all been either Academy Award winners or nominees. The small screen has gone huge. Masters of Sex, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family all received multiple nominations last year, but were snubbed this time around. None did anything terribly wrong – Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory are the same as they ever were, and Masters of Sex and Modern Family have arguably improved in the most recent series. Instead it seems like a clutch of newer, shinier, and more talked-about shows, such as The Affair and Transparent have captured voters' imaginations.

abc and fox -- received a nomination for best comedy or musical series in golden globes history , not one of the traditional big four networks -- nbc , cbs , modern family , failed instead to the relatively young network addition the cw network sitcom .

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

Social gaming is n't just a diversion anymore . This startup thinks the model can make people healthier . FORTUNE -- Can an online social game help fight obesity ?

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

Social gaming is n't just a diversion anymore . This startup thinks the model can make people healthier . FORTUNE -- Can an online social game help fight obesity ? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever - growing employee health care bills ? That 's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth , a veteran of Microsoft and Google , is making with

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

FORTUNE -- Can an online social game help fight obesity ? '' You can change people 's behavior a little , but you have to make it fun for them , '' says Bosworth , who previously ran Google Health , the search giant 's now defunct effort to create online medical records .

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

paul krugman vs. ben bernanke .

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

bet entrepreneur adam bosworth , a veteran of microsoft msft and google goog , is making with keas , an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun -- or at least the bird found in new zealand ) sells its web-based app to companies , which in turn push it out to their employees . co-workers form the construction giant , deployed keas as part of a larger wellness initiative . about 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up , the

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

social gaming is n't just a diversion anymore – this startup thinks the model can make people healthier . '' fortune -- can an online social game help fight obesity ? can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing .

Social gaming isn't just a diversion anymore. This startup thinks the model can make people healthier. FORTUNE — Can an online social game help fight obesity? Can it help businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills? That's the bet entrepreneur Adam Bosworth, a veteran of Microsoft MSFT and Google GOOG , is making with Keas, an online service that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun — or at least a little less painful. San Francisco-based Keas (pronounced kee-ahs, it is named for a bird found in New Zealand) sells its web-based app to companies, which in turn push it out to their employees. Co-workers form teams of five or six and enter a competition in which members earn points by answering online quizzes about healthy foods, taking breaks at work to reduce stress, and meeting weekly goals for eating fruits and vegetables, sleeping, and, of course, exercising. All the activities are shared among participants on a Facebook-like news feed, where teammates and rivals can comment, give verbal pats on the back, or urge each other on. Keas charges $12 per user for a year and lets companies personalize the site and choose what rewards, if any, they give to winning teams. "You can change people's behavior a little, but you have to make it fun for them," says Bosworth, who previously ran Google Health, the search giant's now defunct effort to create online medical records. "People will fall off the wagon, and that's when you need a social mechanism to help them climb back on." World's Most Admired Companies: 9 top techs Early results are encouraging. Bechtel, the construction giant, deployed Keas as part of a larger wellness initiative. About 8,000 employees in 44 countries signed up, and roughly half reported losing weight over an initial 12-week period. At Progress Software PRGS , of some 600 employees who signed up, two-thirds reported losing some weight, one-third said they were less stressed, and scores said they pared down unhealthy foods. "If you are engaged with others and you have a support mechanism, it is going to have a tremendous impact," says Joe Andrews, who heads human resources at Progress. But experts warn that while promising, health apps like Keas should be put in perspective. "You can change behavior for a short time with just about anything," says Toni Yancey, professor of public health at UCLA. "Where the pedal hits the metal is in getting people to change behavior for the long term." Despite questions about their overall efficacy, corporate wellness apps are proliferating in part because many investors are betting that the social-gaming wave popularized by Zynga ZNGA can be harnessed to fight obesity. Keas, which has raised $17.5 million from investors, competes with Virgin HealthMiles, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, and Red-Brick Health, among others. It seems counterintuitive, but if game-based health companies succeed, they may have couch-potato favorites such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars to thank. This article is from the March 19, 2012 issue of Fortune.

social gaming is n't just a diversion anymore thinks the model can make people healthier . fortune startup thinks businesses put a lid on ever-growing employee health care bills help fight obesity ? that aims to make exercising and eating your vegetables more fun on a bird found in new zealand ) sells its web-based app to companies , which is named for a online social game help aims to create online medical records goog , it is making with keas , an online service that aims this social mechanism to help them climb back on .

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible , I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues . No , it seems not only is work hard going , they expect it to be like that . Does anyone muck about in your office ?

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

you work last to find someone your down or your in ?

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

'' Yes , '' he replied , '' It would liven things up a bit . Call centres , the white collar factories . Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you 're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van .

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

as a small - small <UNK> has allowed in the brain , some a size and <UNK> , but

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

overly whimsical and irresponsible , i canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues . no , it seems not only is work hard going , they expect it to be like that . does anyone muck about in your office ? i asked one , a software engineer . `` no , it would n't go down well , '' he replied , `` it would liven things up a bit . '' i went after easy meat . call centres , the white collar factories . forget the bbc series ` the

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

in case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible , i canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues . '' it seems not only is work hard going , they expect it to be like that .

In case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible, I canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues. No, it seems not only is work hard going, they expect it to be like that. Does anyone muck about in your office? I asked one, a software engineer. "No, it wouldn't go down well," he replied, surprised. It sounds a bit... boring, I suggested. Do you ever wish someone would mess about? "Yes," he replied, "It would liven things up a bit." I went after easy meat. Call centres, the white collar factories. Forget the BBC series 'The Call Centre', according to one worker. You don't get big, cuddly characters like Nev running them, you get horrible jobsworths clocking toilet breaks and listening in on calls. Pranking or getting punk'd to employ youth argot still exists but you're more likely to find it in the unregulated world of the white van. There was a great video which went viral last year of a bloke innocently toying with a magnifying glass before turning it on his enraged workmate while he toyed with his phone.

in case this is me being overly whimsical and irresponsible , i canvassed opinion from friends and colleagues it seems not only is work hard going , they expect it to be like that .

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

Updated Jul 7 , 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie , should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer . Which big name stars could be on the move this summer ? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux .

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie , should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer . Juventus van Persie chase

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

Paris Saint Germain have been linked , and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie , Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career .

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage of microsoft , including articles , videos , photos , and quotes .

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which the been linked , and whilst nobody could afford van persie , sky sports understands the most important thing to him at this point in his career . and psg chairman nasser he

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land robin van persie , should the dutchman leave arsenal this summer ? find out the latest with rumor redux the gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club .

Updated Jul 7, 2012 6:40 PM ET Juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land Robin van Persie, should the Dutchman leave Arsenal this summer. Which big name stars could be on the move this summer? Find out the latest with Rumor Redux. The Gunners captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run. Since his announcement a host of clubs have been linked, but Sky Sports understands that just three clubs are currently challenging for his signature - Juventus, Manchester City and Manchester United. All three have been in the reckoning all summer and that has not changed. Both City and United are set to offer him the chance to remain in England, should he leave the Emirates, but Juve are pushing hard with Italian sources claiming their offer would make him one of the highest players in Europe. Van Persie has made it clear that silverware is the most important thing to him at this point - although all three clubs would be well in contention next season to challenge for every honor. The player himself is currently on holiday and is due to return to England next week, when more talks with Arsenal are likely. Paris Saint Germain have been linked, and whilst nobody could deny they could afford Van Persie, Sky Sports understands that the player would not entertain a move to the French capital at this point in his career. And PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi says his club have not made contact with the Dutch forward. "We have never talked with Van Persie," he told l'Equipe. "We trust our current forwards. But we are trying to find another one." Various reports claim Real Madrid, Barcelona and AC Milan are also in contention but those reports are believed to be wide of the mark at present.

juventus are reportedly leading the chase to land robin van persie , should the dutchman leave arsenal this summer ? find out the latest with rumor redux captain declared earlier this week that he would not be renewing his contract with the club - which has just 12 months left to run and united are set to offer .

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

Notice ACA Kalpone ..... you make claims then only name call .... just another name caller day in and out ACA ! The rt winger plan ... only name call to deflect from the story ! oh , do please spare us all will you ?

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

are Ted Cruz , the who a in to during the shutdown , said late . Capitol in Washington D.C. News they were into ...

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

It 's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects , but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $ 3.1 billion .

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

from the <UNK> , three up who have held to be the most president .

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

nation 's capital . according to a new survey by international council of shopping centers and goldman sachs ( +0.23 % , news ) , about 40 percent of americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown . nearly half of those earning $ 35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending , versus about a third of respondents making $ 100,000 or more . well , shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior ! their government benefits are at stake . they the to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk , as

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

[UNK] of course it will affect low income earners behavior ! their government benefits are at stake , and making sure the aca was ready to go forward for funding , btw it still is not .

Notice ACA Kalpone.....you make claims then only name call....just another name caller day in and out ACA! The rt winger plan...only name call to deflect from the story! oh, do please spare us all will you? well I have yet to see you provide anything to deny my claims either have I? your self righteous hoo rah is nothing more than that, self righteous.... WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT TED CRUZ !!! How the government shutdown shook up the US economy Analysts say the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. what about that 8 trillion that went to 17 trillion in 5 years? your not angry about that are you? well you were when Nodumbo was running for his 1st term.... Though Congress finally put an end to the 16-day government shutdown late Wednesday night, economists say the standoff has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, with effects extending across a number of industries beyond the federal government itself. again... that 17 trillion must mean nothing. Gonna blame that on Bush too? like the democrats even said, a few billion is a drop in the bucket. so whats your beef, when we have a 17T, and someone actually tries to do something about it? The shutdown forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors out of work, put government contracts on hold, shuttered national parks and museums and left businesses with fewer customers and lower sales. It's too early to know the final cost of those and other effects, but analysts at IHS Global Insight said the hit to gross domestic product from lost government services alone totals $3.1 billion. no it put them on furlough, they still get paid for the time they didn't work. again, going to cry about 3 billion? to pay back on the interest is close to a trillion alone, what about that? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." what do you think it will be when we can no longer raise our borrowing limit? Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. what have other failed programs, cost us? post some of those. funny I don't hear you call foul and point out that when Nodumbo and his band of thieves left Bush tax cuts in place for (what was it 3 years), and then threw in employment and R&D incentives how it hit revenue in the belt? well, you must have forgot how the R&D incentive had not only big business defense contractors, mostly pay in next to nothing and in some get money back from the tax payer huh? There will also be some impact from lost private-sector jobs tied to the shutdown, as well as a loss of consumer and business confidence resulting from the debt-ceiling showdown," IHS economists wrote in an analysis released to the media. "The exact impact on the rest of the economy will be hard to measure until delayed economic data are released." Even before that data becomes available, analysts at Standard & Poor's estimated that the shutdown cost $24 billion (or $1.5 billion a day) and slowed the country's economic growth rate by an annualized 0.6 percent for the current quarter. yet before those number are released your just gonna banter on and on? "The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy," S&P said in a statement. "In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent." The Washington, D.C. region was hit especially hard. Some local businesses took a major blow since there were fewer tourists and workers shopping and dining out during the shutdown. Pete's Diner on Capitol Hill, a favorite of many members of Congress including House Speaker John Boehner, lost about 80 percent of its usual business, according to MSN. Businesses like that diner, located in communities hit hard by the federal government shutdown, will never be able to make that money back. "While the federal workers will receive their back pay, the missed coffee, burgers and cocktails will not be repurchased upon their return," Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, said in a statement. since when did you care about small business? an idiot can see the ACA is going to kill small business, and those that don't fail will have to raise cost, costing the taxpayers plenty. where is your gripe about losss of revenue, because senate and congress get a 72% insurance subsidy? where again is your complaint with loopeholes for big business? where is your complaint that the middle class is going to bear the burden with tax hikes, insurance premiums, and unfair payments, and return subsidy for paying in? funny I work for a government contractor... I still have a job, my insurance is going thru the roof after the 1st of the year, and my out of pocket along with it... where is your complaint that with all this increase, it will put more middle class lower wage earners, on the taxpayer tab, because that loss hits them when it comes to food and paying for gas and electric? They will have to apply for food and energy assistance (the ones who were scraping by as it was) because they can not afford to feed themselves or keep a light on. if you, and your ilk were not so ignorant to the obvious (might be because you never worked a day in your life) you would see what this is costing the middle class, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet, because they cant get the program up and running due to outdated equipment... where your complaint on that? heck, millions of Americans cant log on to check whats out there... I don't hear you crying about the hundreds of millions, now going to be in the billions, because the whole thing will have to be scrapped and started over. go on... let us hear foul on that! But the shutdown's impact was felt well beyond the nation's capital. According to a new survey by International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs (GS +0.23%, news), about 40 percent of Americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown. The survey found that low-income consumers were especially likely to say the shutdown affected their behavior. Nearly half of those earning $35,000 or less said they scaled back their spending, versus about a third of respondents making $100,000 or more. well, shucks of course it will affect low income earners behavior! their government benefits are at stake. they have to scale back on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk, as well as energy assistance. means they have more out of pocket costs. All this you have mentioned if Nodumbo would have least tried to work on spending, and making sure the ACA was ready to go forward for funding, BTW it still is not.

but the shutdown 's impact was felt well beyond the nation 's capital . according to a new survey by international council of shopping centers and goldman sachs ( gs +0.23 % , news ) , about 40 percent of americans say they had curbed spending as a result of the shutdown affected their behavior it will affect low income earners behavior ! their government benefits are especially likely to work on spending for reasons such as food share dropped a good chunk , as well as $ 100,000 or more .

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy , Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri . But what if he did ? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen . ''

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

In Missouri , nominees in the of a campaign is complicated .

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

'' The secretary 's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters , '' Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin 's name from the ballot .

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage of derrick rose , including articles , videos , photos , and quotes .

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

drop-dead deadline is sept. 25 , when general absentee ballots are sent out.election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state 's history . but ms. carnahan is herself a factor in republican minds . as the democratic senate nominee in 2010 , she lost to representative roy blunt , and republicans imagine she could put up a fight . that might be the

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

when general absentee ballots are sent out.election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state [UNK] history . but ms. carnahan is herself a factor in republican minds .

Despite the firestorm over his comments about rape and pregnancy, Representative Todd Akin says he has no plans to drop out as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri. But what if he did? The procedures in Missouri to change nominees midstream are complicated and intended to discourage just the sort of change that many in the Republican Party say they are eager to see happen. "As more time passes, you're starting to go up against deadlines," said Stacie Temple, a spokeswoman for Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Ms. Temple said the longer Mr. Akin waited, the more difficult it would get. The first deadline for Mr. Akin to have easily withdrawn from the race was Tuesday evening. His decision to stay in the race means that he now has only a few weeks to reconsider before things get even harder. Certification of the presidential ballots in Missouri will be no later than Sept. 17, and could be shortly after President Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination on Sept. 5. Once the ballots are printed, any candidate who seeks to withdraw must pay for the reprinting of new ballots. That could be prohibitively expensive for Mr. Akin, but presumably the Republican Party — which badly wants him to withdraw — would cover the cost. Military overseas ballots begin shipping out Sept. 22. That might be the first firm deadline. But the drop-dead deadline is Sept. 25, when general absentee ballots are sent out. Mel Carnahan, the former Missouri governor and Ms. Carnahan's father, died on Oct. 16, 2000, during his campaign for the Senate against the Republican incumbent, John Ashcroft. Mr. Carnahan's name nonetheless appeared on the ballot in November — and he won. (His widow, Jean, was appointed to the seat, and lost it in special election in 2002.) Assuming that Mr. Akin bows to pressure from Republican leaders (or simply concludes that he isn't able to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign), Missouri law requires that he seek a court order allowing him to drop out of the race. State officials say that issuing such court orders is routine. Mr. Akin would merely have to file the necessary papers with the court and his name would no longer be printed on the November ballot. Republicans could then quickly nominate someone else to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent. Democrats would no doubt like to see Mr. Akin — now politically weakened by his comments on rape and pregnancy — stay in the race. In theory, the Democratic officials who run the state's election offices could object to Mr. Akin's request for a court order, a move that would force a hearing before a judge. The relevant statute says someone like Mr. Akin can withdraw "pursuant to a court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the candidate to the circuit court in the county of such candidate's residence." Election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state's history. But Ms. Carnahan is herself a factor in Republican minds. As the Democratic Senate nominee in 2010, she lost to Representative Roy Blunt, and Republicans imagine she could put up a fight. "The secretary's job is to protect the rights of Missouri voters," Ms. Temple said when asked whether Ms. Carnahan would fight a court order to remove Mr. Akin's name from the ballot. A further complication: Under state law, any election authority in Missouri can oppose a withdrawal order, down to the county and city level, and there are Democrats aplenty in Missouri. But Ms. Temple added that right now, it would be up to a Missouri court to determine whether Mr. Akin could withdraw, not the secretary of state. "It's completely in the hands of the court to decide the facts," she said. Assuming Mr. Akin does manage to drop out, the state central committee of the Republican Party in Missouri would have to pick a new candidate within 28 days, or by Oct. 12, whichever comes first.

military overseas ballots begin shipping out sept. 22 . that drop-dead deadline is sept. 25 , when general absentee ballots are sent out.election officials say they can find no precedent at all for such an objection in the state 's history .

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

I think there 's a real possibility that there 's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country , especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people . The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum , to some extent , and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France . Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests , I think you are going to finish up with this discontent .

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

the 's political and to

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

I think there 's a real possibility that there 's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country , especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people .

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

collection of all usatoday.com coverage

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

referendum , to some extent , and so is syriza and so is the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its the country in a way which is in their interests , i think you are going to finish up with this discontent . if we are going to save liberal democracy , it 's very important that something is done to satisfy back on track again the

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

i think there [UNK] a real possibility that there [UNK] going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country , especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people .

I think there's a real possibility that there's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country, especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people. The Trump phenomenon is really a reflection of what happened in the referendum, to some extent, and so is Podemos and so is Syriza and so is the Front National in France. Unless the western world can somehow or other satisfy large numbers of its people that it can run the economy and the country in a way which is in their interests, I think you are going to finish up with this discontent. If we are going to save liberal democracy, it's very important that something is done to get it back on track again.

i think there 's a real possibility that there 's going to be a substantial realignment in the political scene in this country , especially if nothing is done to satisfy these dissatisfied people that it can run up with this discontent large numbers of what happened in the referendum , to some extent , and so is the front national in france .

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book , New Money : Staying Rich , former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002 . From an excerpt of New Money : Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports : Soon after the draft , she [ Buchanon 's mother ] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years . Well , that was news to me .

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

'' She told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years . ''

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

From an excerpt of New Money : Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports : Soon after the draft , she [ Buchanon 's mother ] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years .

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

a statement for the new york , president , and an man , and a report of the stars for the global media ?

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

tennessean in his new book , new money : staying rich that appeared on fox sports : soon the draft , she [ buchanon 's mother ] told me that i owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years . well , that was news to me . if my mother taught me anything 's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child . [UNK] when check ; of course , the

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

when the cost of this house became too big a burden , buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $ 15,000 phillip buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the oakland raiders in 2002 .

JAE S. LEE / THE TENNESSEAN In his new book, New Money: Staying Rich, former NFL cornerback Phillip Buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2002. From an excerpt of New Money: Staying Rich that appeared on FOX Sports: Soon after the draft, she [Buchanon's mother] told me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past 18 years. Well, that was news to me. If my mother taught me anything, it's that this is the most desperate demand that a parent can make on a child. The covenant of having a child is simply that you give your child everything possible, and they owe you nothing beyond a normal amount of love and respect. There is no financial arrangement. However, Buchanon said he did not pay his mother the $1 million; instead, he bought her a house and covered its maintenance costs. Of this decision, he writes: "I bought her a house with my luxury taste and no real wisdom behind it. It was an uneducated purchase." When the cost of this house became too big a burden, Buchanon offered to either buy his mother a smaller house or pay her $15,000. She chose the money. The 34-year-old went on to say he learned a lesson from reconciling his NFL salary with his familial relationships. Early on, I found myself in too many situations where some relative would come to me and claim they needed something fixed. So I'd write them a check; of course, the problem never got fixed. The check, however, always got cashed. By trying to fix a problem, I created an additional one for myself … It took hundreds of thousands of dollars, far more than the cost of an Ivy League education, to learn this lesson. I can at least attribute it to my mother. It's true; mothers have a way of making you learn the most important lessons in life. (Thanks to FOX Sports for bringing this to our attention.) Get the latest from FTW in your feed.

new money : staying rich , former nfl cornerback phillip buchanon wrote that his mother made a sizable monetary request of him after he was drafted 17th overall by the oakland raiders in his new book , new money : staying rich that appeared on fox sports : soon after the draft , she [ s. lee / the tennessean in his new book , always got cashed .

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

LONDON , Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill , '' John Cleland 's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute , was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life . The prosecution , which is to ban the paperback edition of '' Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure , '' suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign '' Banned in America '' in his window . Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller , literary editor of the magazine New Statesman , took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate 's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic .

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

Quennell , Hyde , Miller book is , trial

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

Mr. Quennell , who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book , said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury .

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

the election , needs 's economy - increasingly in california , but is no good ,

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

, jan. 27 -- `` tury tury story of a london prosti tute on trial was not appealing to historians with the sign `` banned in america '' in his window . peter quennell and h. montgomery hyde and was said to offer historical insights into english life the stand in bow street magistrate 's court the paperback edition of `` memoirs of a woman of pleasure , '' suggested that he would find useful the

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

`` fanny hill , '' john cleland 's 18th‐cen tury story of a london prosti tute was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into english life .

LONDON, Jan. 27—"Fanny Hill," John Cleland's 18th‐cen­tury story of a London prosti tute, was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into English life. The prosecution, which is to ban the paperback edition of "Memoirs of a Wo­man of Pleasure," suggested that the Soho bookseller on trial was not appealing to his­torians with the sign "Banned in America" in his window. Peter Quennell and H. Mont­gomery Hyde and Karl Miller, literary editor of the magazine New Statesman, took the stand in Bow Street Magistrate's Court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic. Mr. Hyde said that pornog­raphy was "dirt for dirt's sake with no esthetc feeling at all." He said that "Fanny Hill" did not fit this category and "should be freely available." Fanny was compared during the day to some of the more ex­otic women of literature, includ­ing Moll Flanders, Madame Bo­vary. Nana and Lolita. Mr. Quennell, who has writ­ten a foreword to a United States edition of the book, said that he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social history of the 18th cen­tury. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to [email protected]

london , jan. 27 -- `` fanny hill , '' john cleland 's 18th‐cen tury story of a london prosti tute was defended against charges of obscenity today by authors and a critic and was said to offer historical insights into english life , which is to ban the paperback edition of `` memoirs of the magazine new statesman , took the stand in bow street magistrate 's court to say that the book was erotic but neither obscene nor pornographic was compared during the day to historians with the sign `` banned in america '' in his original form he had found 40 or 41 passages in it that he would find useful if he were writing a social

The Coworking Resources Series is supported by join.me. Get your people together without actually getting them together. Just instantly share your screen so everybody's on the same page. No need for a plane, a projector or a sandwich platter. Just gather at join.me. If you've decided that it's time to leave your bathrobe at home, let your favorite coffee shop have its corner table back, and join a coworking space, you're only halfway there. Though coworking can have a lot of perks, how you take advantage of them and shape your experience is up to you. "We've had people who within the first week they've kind of immersed themselves [in]to events and socializing with other people here, or they're just here, they do their work, and then they take off," says Jeff Park, who manages the Ravenswood Coworking Group in Chicago. "We know that they come in, but I think for them that's enough for them. They just want to be around other people in a productive environment." Whether you're aiming to be as productive as possible without a lot of socializing or trying to build a strong professional community that you can turn to for resources and support, these five tips can help you get the most out of your coworking experience. Green Spaces, a coworking space in Tribeca, specializes in environmentally focused businesses. Mountain View-based Cubes & Crayons combines childcare and coworking. WorkBar in Boston is hosted in a 2,500-square-foot space and has separate areas for cafe-like and quieter working styles. Coworking Brooklyn uses a small room that functions as an art gallery by night. The coworking experience varies drastically depending on which space you're using. Different spaces have different levels of interaction with other workers, formality and general vibe. While some spaces, like Green Spaces and Cubes & Crayons, state their niche upfront, you'll only be able to gauge what the environment is like by dropping in. Most spaces have daily drop-in rates. Try a couple of different spaces to see what works best for you before you commit. You can find a list of space around the world on the Coworking Wiki. "See if the people in the space are people who you could go and see every day…if it's not, then go to the next space," says Jay Catalan, the co-founder of a coworking space in Vancouver called The Network Hub. It's less awkward to introduce yourself on the first day than to work alongside someone for months before asking their name. Even if you're not usually outgoing, try to make a special effort for the first week or two when you start in a new coworking space. "Just make introductions and it goes a long way…We've had some people they wish they had met sooner because it turns out they did similar lines of work and just talking about it or actually sharing work, it's not something you want to find out when you only have a couple more months left on your project or something," Park says. If you're shy about meeting people, try getting creative (like, for instance, bringing food). Bill Jacobson and Dave Ulrich, who co-founded WorkBar, said that one new coworker at WorkBar Boston showed up with a big box of doughnuts. "He got to know everybody pretty quick," Jacobson says. Don't stop interacting with your coworkers after you introduce yourself. One of the biggest benefits of coworking is the built-in community of professionals working across different industries. "It may not seem directly 'productive' to chat with your coworker for 10 minutes mid-day, but indirectly, it yields greater results than almost anything else you could spend time on," says Parker Whitney, office manager for Philadelphia coworking space Independents Hall, though he says, "Invest in your community by taking (not faking) interest in what its members do, and it will take you with it…The people you've always wanted to know are sitting all around you. Ask questions. Learn. Most importantly, help them when you can." If you are too busy during the workday for water cooler conversation, most coworking spaces host happy hours, seminars or other events that are prime opportunities for learning more about your coworkers. "Even when you work for yourself, it's important to realize your limitations," says Dave Martorana, a freelance Python & iPhone developer who works at Independents Hall. "If you're a software developer, you're not necessarily a designer, product manager, or marketer as well. When you work at a coworking space, people with those skills probably work right next to you and are just as interested in building something awesome as you are." While coworking one day, I ended up testing someone's website, getting caught in the crossfire of a music choice showdown, and participating in a raised-hand vote about which suit jacket a fellow coworker should wear to a meeting. Needless to say, the social aspects of coworking — despite their advantages — can be extremely distracting. Which is why out of the 37 productivity tips that I collected for a previous article, this one from Paul Preibisch of B3D Multitech remains my favorite: "Rather than standing up from behind your wall of monitors and shouting, 'Can you all shut up?!' you may want to consider, what I call 'The Cone of Silence.' It really works! All you need are a nice pair of headphones, (not earbuds), a wave file that plays 'white noise,' and Windows Media Player set to auto-repeat." The Coworking Resources Series is supported by join.me. Get your people together without actually getting them together. Just instantly share your screen so everybody's on the same page. No need for a plane, a projector or a sandwich platter. Just gather at join.me. So what exactly is join.me? It's an impromptu meeting space that happens wherever, whenever. It's getting a second or third pair of eyes on your presentation from across the hall or across the continent. It's sharing your screen instantly with anyone or everyone to get stuff done, quickly. It's join.me, the last two words in an invitation to collaborate, meet, train, demo or show-off. - 5 Signs That Coworking Might Be for You - 37 Productivity Tips for Working From Anywhere - Why Co-Working Makes Sense for Small Businesses - HOW TO: Choose the Best Workspace for Your Business - 10 Essential Tips for Building Your Small Biz Team Image courtesy of iStockphoto, Nikada Flickr, Peter A. Blacksberg, boboroshi, steveyb

The Coworking Resources Series is supported by join.me . Get your people together without actually getting them together . Just instantly share your screen so everybody 's on the same page .

The Coworking Resources Series is supported by join.me. Get your people together without actually getting them together. Just instantly share your screen so everybody's on the same page. No need for a plane, a projector or a sandwich platter. Just gather at join.me. If you've decided that it's time to leave your bathrobe at home, let your favorite coffee shop have its corner table back, and join a coworking space, you're only halfway there. Though coworking can have a lot of perks, how you take advantage of them and shape your experience is up to you. "We've had people who within the first week they've kind of immersed themselves [in]to events and socializing with other people here, or they're just here, they do their work, and then they take off," says Jeff Park, who manages the Ravenswood Coworking Group in Chicago. "We know that they come in, but I think for them that's enough for them. They just want to be around other people in a productive environment." Whether you're aiming to be as productive as possible without a lot of socializing or trying to build a strong professional community that you can turn to for resources and support, these five tips can help you get the most out of your coworking experience. Green Spaces, a coworking space in Tribeca, specializes in environmentally focused businesses. Mountain View-based Cubes & Crayons combines childcare and coworking. WorkBar in Boston is hosted in a 2,500-square-foot space and has separate areas for cafe-like and quieter working styles. Coworking Brooklyn uses a small room that functions as an art gallery by night. The coworking experience varies drastically depending on which space you're using. Different spaces have different levels of interaction with other workers, formality and general vibe. While some spaces, like Green Spaces and Cubes & Crayons, state their niche upfront, you'll only be able to gauge what the environment is like by dropping in. Most spaces have daily drop-in rates. Try a couple of different spaces to see what works best for you before you commit. You can find a list of space around the world on the Coworking Wiki. "See if the people in the space are people who you could go and see every day…if it's not, then go to the next space," says Jay Catalan, the co-founder of a coworking space in Vancouver called The Network Hub. It's less awkward to introduce yourself on the first day than to work alongside someone for months before asking their name. Even if you're not usually outgoing, try to make a special effort for the first week or two when you start in a new coworking space. "Just make introductions and it goes a long way…We've had some people they wish they had met sooner because it turns out they did similar lines of work and just talking about it or actually sharing work, it's not something you want to find out when you only have a couple more months left on your project or something," Park says. If you're shy about meeting people, try getting creative (like, for instance, bringing food). Bill Jacobson and Dave Ulrich, who co-founded WorkBar, said that one new coworker at WorkBar Boston showed up with a big box of doughnuts. "He got to know everybody pretty quick," Jacobson says. Don't stop interacting with your coworkers after you introduce yourself. One of the biggest benefits of coworking is the built-in community of professionals working across different industries. "It may not seem directly 'productive' to chat with your coworker for 10 minutes mid-day, but indirectly, it yields greater results than almost anything else you could spend time on," says Parker Whitney, office manager for Philadelphia coworking space Independents Hall, though he says, "Invest in your community by taking (not faking) interest in what its members do, and it will take you with it…The people you've always wanted to know are sitting all around you. Ask questions. Learn. Most importantly, help them when you can." If you are too busy during the workday for water cooler conversation, most coworking spaces host happy hours, seminars or other events that are prime opportunities for learning more about your coworkers. "Even when you work for yourself, it's important to realize your limitations," says Dave Martorana, a freelance Python & iPhone developer who works at Independents Hall. "If you're a software developer, you're not necessarily a designer, product manager, or marketer as well. When you work at a coworking space, people with those skills probably work right next to you and are just as interested in building something awesome as you are." While coworking one day, I ended up testing someone's website, getting caught in the crossfire of a music choice showdown, and participating in a raised-hand vote about which suit jacket a fellow coworker should wear to a meeting. Needless to say, the social aspects of coworking — despite their advantages — can be extremely distracting. Which is why out of the 37 productivity tips that I collected for a previous article, this one from Paul Preibisch of B3D Multitech remains my favorite: "Rather than standing up from behind your wall of monitors and shouting, 'Can you all shut up?!' you may want to consider, what I call 'The Cone of Silence.' It really works! All you need are a nice pair of headphones, (not earbuds), a wave file that plays 'white noise,' and Windows Media Player set to auto-repeat." The Coworking Resources Series is supported by join.me. Get your people together without actually getting them together. Just instantly share your screen so everybody's on the same page. No need for a plane, a projector or a sandwich platter. Just gather at join.me. So what exactly is join.me? It's an impromptu meeting space that happens wherever, whenever. It's getting a second or third pair of eyes on your presentation from across the hall or across the continent. It's sharing your screen instantly with anyone or everyone to get stuff done, quickly. It's join.me, the last two words in an invitation to collaborate, meet, train, demo or show-off. - 5 Signs That Coworking Might Be for You - 37 Productivity Tips for Working From Anywhere - Why Co-Working Makes Sense for Small Businesses - HOW TO: Choose the Best Workspace for Your Business - 10 Essential Tips for Building Your Small Biz Team Image courtesy of iStockphoto, Nikada Flickr, Peter A. Blacksberg, boboroshi, steveyb

Whether you 're aiming to be as productive as possible or trying to build a strong professional community , these five tips can help you get the most out of your coworking experience .