Media on HuffingtonPost.com

Jeff Reeves: Confessions of a Wall Street Reactionary

2012-02-10T16:05:00Z

Apple is bigger than Exxon Mobil -- and now Apple is about to hit $500 a share! The Dow is approaching 13,000! Unemployment is at a three-year low!

All those things sound grand, right? But in reality, not a single one of those numbers means a darn thing -- at least, not without context.

At risk of revealing that the emperor has no clothes, let me clue you in to a dirty little secret about the financial media: We're short-sighted, number-junkie reactionaries. We tout numbers like they matter, when sometimes they don't. We avoid in-depth analysis in favor of numbers with a lot of zeroes after them. We are, by and large, lazy and uncreative creatures.

So do yourself a favor and don't place too much weight on the aforementioned data points bandied about in a vacuum with no background. Sad to say, but often financial reporters dig so deep into the data points that a big-picture view of the situation is overlooked. All you get is a zoomed-in, HD-quality close up of a single pore or pimple or wrinkle on the face of the situation.

I say "we" because I'm guilty of this as much as anyone. I try my best to fight such things, but the old urge to talk about Dow 13,000 is becoming too much for me to bear. It's a round number, with three zeroes! It's a number that hasn't been attained since before Lehman went bust!

It has to mean something, right? Time to write a story!

Or not.

You see, investing -- and by proxy, reporting on finance and investing -- is all about long-term trajectories and context. If it were simply as easy as looking at one number, everyone would be a millionaire.

Let's look at the S&P 500. The benchmark index is still down 13 percent from its 2007 peak. If your portfolio is underwater -- or even if it's flat after five years -- you're probably not setting off the fireworks. Sure, short-term strength is nice to know about... but what's your 401(k) or IRA going to do in the next seven months? What's the outlook for the next seven years?

The headline numbers are also poor substitutes for sentiment about the macroeconomic conditions. When the market was down 100 points in 2011 and then up 200 points the next day, are we to believe that optimism and pessimism over the global economic outlook was whipsawing around at the same pace? They weren't -- but stocks were.

It's human nature to want to read into the data, to find some cosmic meaning there. But sometimes, numbers are just numbers.

Take Apple and its share price. Who cares if it hits $500 or not? Google (GOOG 0.00%) is actually already "higher," at $600. What's really impressive to people isn't Apple's share price now but where it came from -- a mere $200 at the beginning of 2010. Those are some impressive gains of about 150 percent! Go back 10 years, and you get a staggering 4,000 percent jump!

Of course, those gains are hardly unmatched. Take Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, up 5,740 percent since early 2010. Not only has it trounced Apple in that period, it has lapped Apple's 10-year return in just a fraction of the time.

Rental cars aren't nearly as sexy as iPads, however, and a $76 share price isn't exactly a number that people get excited about.

How about the nonsense that "Apple is bigger than Microsoft and Google COMBINED!"

Well, by market cap, maybe. That's a simple calculation of share price times shares outstanding. You'd think Apple is a killer that's unrivaled by any company, tech or otherwise.

Not so much when you look beyond market cap. Take revenue: Apple is part of the $100 billion club, and that's an impressive feat. But its sales are just a quarter of those recorded annually by Exxon. Exxon is dramatically bigger than Apple, measured by profits and sales. Another boring company, Walmart also blows away Apple, with $420 billion in sales.

Does the sheer size of Exxon or Walmart make it a buy? No way. Walmart has struggled significantly when it comes to increasing sales -- and that's the problem. Growth is what counts, not some silly headline about size. Or shares price. Or whatever.

Unemployment is the really sticky one. We're so eager for progress that we tout a tenth of a percentage point dropping off the headline number, when millions of Americans remain unemployed, underemployed or have just plain given up looking for work. Oh yeah, and the headline unemployment rate is still almost double pre-recession levels.

Look around and ask your neighbors if they are stuck in a job they hate because they don't see any options, or whether they have gotten a raise in the past few years. Or if they have been laid off despite the rosy headlines. That's a much better metric.

I know many folks in financial media can't resist horseracing two numbers. We love to see which figure is bigger. We love to compare current numbers to the ghost of numbers past.

But at the end of the day, they're curiosity pieces and not much more. The real challenge in this market isn't a deciding which stock or stock price is bigger, or keeping track of random figures that end in zeros.

The challenge is finding context in the data, and plotting future trends.

Keep this in mind when you hear stories about Apple's market cap. Or the number of days that make up the current S&P winning streak. Or Facebook's IPO size. Or Starbucks at an all-time high.

You get the idea.

Write Jeff Reeves at editor@investorplaceâââ.com.

Astrid Caldas: Shooting the Messenger Is Not the Answer

2012-02-10T15:48:53Z

Note to readers: This post builds on the one taken down last week. Many apologies.

Yet another blog post commenting on the WSJ debacle about non-climate scientists' opinions versus climate scientists' opinions got me thinking (again) why the conversation about climate change is so charged. There are always conflicting opinions on many issues, especially those that have the potential to affect our way of living. But when a vast majority of specialists around the world agree on something, I would argue that they probably have a basis for that. Freedom of speech is an important part of the democratic process, but it should be used to bridge paths and not divide them. Having strong opinions about something is certainly warranted, and debate is welcome. However, it seems that when it comes to climate change, some not-so-civil behavior has become acceptable.

Just in the past couple of weeks, various articles have decried the personal attacks climate scientists have been receiving, simply because they do science that some people do not agree with or choose not to believe in. These articles (examples here, here, and here) describe (some in detail) what types of threatening emails and other acts climate scientists are being subjected to. Emails saying "I know where your kids go to school" and "you are nothing but a liar" are disrespectful at best and harassment at worst, which is unacceptable in any context. Why do some people feel the need to resort to personal attacks about climate?

A lot of misunderstandings about climate science stems from the scientific method itself. Science is almost never certain -- it mostly deals with probable causes and certain relationships, some stronger than others. In the case of climate, there is a rather large amount of uncertainty related to the actual warming we will see, since it largely depends on what people do in the coming years, but there is no uncertainty that it is getting warmer. This post gives a good analogy of climate science, in that it is not a house of cards that if one card (or fact) falls, the whole thing collapses. Rather, it is more like a jigsaw puzzle, where some pieces may be missing, and some may be in the wrong place, but one can still see the big picture. Why is it then, that so many people cannot see the jigsaw picture?

There are various reasons why one doesn't believe in global warming, and this post does a great job explaining the different types of climate change denial. There are those who follow a common human tendency to interpret the facts in a manner that agrees with their social (or political) group, in an unconscious behavior that leads to acceptance in that group. A recent study stating that media coverage and information from politicians and advocacy groups are among the most prominent drivers of the public perception of climate change seems to largely support this rationale (comments on that study here). But then there are those who consciously choose to not believe, purposefully "creating doubt about climate change, lobbying and campaigning against efforts to reduce the risk or even just to adapt to its effect". Somehow I don't see people in this group changing their rhetoric, and unfortunately, they are primary drivers of climate change perception. We are indeed stuck. How can we move from here?

Because move we must. In the end, this is not about what people think of carbon-reducing measures or lifestyle changes. It is not about the accuracy of climate models. This is about the real facts. The proof that temperatures are going up is here. Not accepting it is akin to looking at your thermometer before leaving the house, seeing it is 80 degrees out there, but putting on a heavy coat anyway -- and then sending an offensive email to the thermometer manufacturer. That's what the attacks on climate scientists amount to. The scientists state their findings, and are not responsible for the temperatures going up -- we all are. So it's up to us to fix our mess, and shooting the messenger is not a good strategy to accomplish that.

Bob Burnett: The GOP Problem: 'It's Halftime in America'

2012-02-10T15:22:00Z

This year's Super Bowl program contained a commercial "It's Halftime in America", featuring Clint Eastwood. Initially this seemed to be a public service pep talk for the nation, then a promo for Detroit, and it turned out to be a Chrysler ad. The commercial outraged Republicans. It's an indication of their core problems in the 2012 presidential contest.

In the ad Eastwood observed that it was halftime in the football game and "It's halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they're hurting. And they're all wondering what they're going to do to make a comeback. And we're all scared, because this isn't a game." He acknowledged Detroit had been through a lot. "I've seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn't understand each other. It seems like we've lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way, then we'll make one. All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?"

Republicans reacted as if they had been sucker punched. Karl Rove went on Fox News decried the ad and accused Obama of "Chicago-style politics." (By the way, Clint Eastwood is an Independent who supported McCain in 2008.)

"It's Halftime in America" contained three themes that promoted Obama's message. The first was the game is not over, America's best days are not over. Eastwood said, "The people of Detroit... almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again... Detroit's showing us it can be done."

In his State of the Union address, President Obama used a similar frame, "Think about the America within our reach... An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded. We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known."

The second theme was that progress has been made. In Eastwood's case he said, "Motor City is fighting again." The government bailouts of the auto industry saved 1.4 million jobs and the big three companies are again making a profit.

In his State of the Union remarks, Obama made the same point:

In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s.

After the speech, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 243,000 jobs had been added in January.

The third theme was the American people have to work together. Eastwood observed, "...after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way, then we'll make one."

In his State of the Union remarks, Obama echoed this:

No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team... And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Republicans are angry about the "It's Halftime in America" ad because it flies in the face of their negative themes: Obama has failed; America has gone in the toilet; and the only way to dig ourselves out of this hole is to place our faith in corporate America. Republicans will have an uphill battle selling this to voters.

Whether or not they have seen the Eastwood ad, Americans don't believe the Republican message. They don't believe that Obama has failed; they feel he has done as much as he could to clean up the mess Bush left him, considering Republican obstruction. Further, Americans don't believe that the U.S. economy is in the toilet. They identify with the people of Detroit who fought back. We believe it's halftime for America and our best days lie ahead.

Finally, voters don't believe that the solution to our problems is to do what Republican suggest: place our faith in the 1 percent. Americans agree with Obama: "As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful."

Joseph F. Coughlin: Got Happiness? Where Marketing Meets the Science of Well-Being

2012-02-10T14:42:10Z

Are you happy? Have you noticed the number of companies that are no longer promising the best quality, experience or even the best price for a product or service as the reason to give them a try? Instead they appear to be offering something we used to think money couldn't buy -- happiness. Retailers, manufacturers, service providers all want you to know how they bring more than just "good things to life," they can make you happy too.

Here are just a few examples:

Campbell's Soup is now making your happy place anywhere you have your soup. Offering a "smile in every spoonful" Campbell's is blending healthy with happiness. On a recent walk through Best Buy I read a commanding sign "Buyer Be Happy." Coca-Cola is offering more than refreshment, now I can -- "Open Happiness." And it is not just 'stuff' that promises to make me happy, services can be downright giddy too. Few people who fly often equate flying with happiness, but JetBlue brought enough innovation to its service that you don't just fly -- you "jet."Their promos onboard and on roadside billboards now promise you will "jet happy."

Happiness is far from new to marketing. Marketers have always used unstated but ever-present cues to elicit emotion to connect with and commit the consumer. Feeling down, 'retail therapy' will make you happy. Shopping for 'I gotta have' items will provide happy relief. Getting 'I wanna have' will produce happy satisfaction. Today there is the expressed promise of happiness stamped on the ingredients label of nearly every product, service and experience. But marketers may be doing more than giving happiness a push, they may, in fact, be touching a powerful generational cord of personal well-being.

The science of well-being has developed rapidly in recent years. Beyond the traditional considerations of physical health, well-being now includes multiple dimensions that capture the whole person. Happiness is certainly a prominent theme. Perhaps the best developed measure of well-being is the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. The Index bases its assessment of America's well-being on a daily survey of 1,000 people collecting data on six dimensions:

Life satisfaction -- how is life today and how do you think it will be five years from now?
Emotional health -- have you experienced happiness, stress, sadness, anger, etc. today or recently?
Physical health -- how is your energy level, have you slept and rested well, are you managing chronic disease(s), does your physical health get in the way of daily activities?
Healthy behaviors -- are you eating well, exercising, not smoking, etc.?
Work environment -- how happy or satisfied are you with your workplace?
Basic access -- do you have access to basic needs, health services, clean food and water, feel safe, satisfied and happy with where you live, etc.?

After four years and more than one million survey responses a pattern emerges. Little surprise, younger adults ages 18 to about 25 years old report a high state of well-being. After 25 years old, however, young adults experience lower well-being leveling off until about age 37. But at about 37 years old most of us descend into a statistical trench for nearly 20 years. The lowest state of well-being is reported by adults 37 to nearly 60 years old. Got happiness? For middle-aged adults -- they may be fresh out. Even adults ages 65 and older report well-being that rivals and surpasses older teens. Interestingly, elder consumers 75-plus report the highest state of well-being of any age group despite chronic diseases and the associated challenges of aging.

So what's up with middle age? There are names, bad jokes, attitudes, conditions and very real medical explanations for midlife blues -- but what is not lost on marketers is that adults in midlife have the largest proportion of discretionary income of any age group. They are also more likely to be the key influencer (often the financier as well) of what their children and elderly parents buy. Moreover, midlifers (older Gen X and younger baby boomers) are more likely to buy high style, high tech -- and given their lower state of well-being -- may be willing to pay a high price for happiness.

Marketing happiness has potential but is not without peril. Older Gen X and younger baby boomers may buy once, but once disappointed a product or service may pay dearly for not delivering to a discerning and inpatient midlife consumer. Delivering on the promise of happiness requires understanding what might be leading to diminished well-being and how the product, service or experience fills the void or provides temporary relief well beyond the thrill of the retail kill. Among the reasons midlife consumers may have lower states of well-being is they are busy -- sandwiched between kids, career, aging parents and all the things called life in between. For them, Starbucks delivers a moment of peace in an otherwise crazed day. Amazon's smiling logo is about making life easier and for stressed midlifers that means happier. BMW promises to deliver joy in an otherwise frustrating daily commute. Creatively mapping happiness to what influences well-being across the lifespan may make more than a good jingle, it makes good strategy -- done correctly it might deliver a few smiles too.

Jason Apuzzo: The Most Provocative Filmmaker in the World: A Conversation With Mads BrÃ¼gger on The Ambassador

2012-02-10T14:33:34Z

His documentaries have been among the most provocative films featured in the Sundance Film Festival over the past several years. Bolder even than Sacha Baron Cohen, he's punk'd both the North Korean communist government and now, in his new film The Ambassador, the Central African Republic and the corrupt diplomatic culture that supports it.

He's one of Europe's funniest and most controversial filmmakers, although most Americans haven't heard of him -- yet.

The name of this lanky, cerebral enfant terrible is Mads BrÃ¼gger.

In BrÃ¼gger's previous film The Red Chapel (read the Libertas Film Magazine review of the film here), winner of Sundance's 2010 World Cinema jury prize for documentaries, the filmmaker pulled off one of the most dangerous and politically provocative stunts in cinema history by infiltrating North Korea as part of a fake socialist comedy group. Operating under the watchful (and vaguely confused) gaze of the North Korean government, BrÃ¼gger's cameras proceeded to document the bizarre, Orwellian nether-world of today's Pyongyang and its frightening cult of the 'Dear Leader.'

In his new film The Ambassador (read the Libertas Film Magazine review of the film here), which recently screened at Sundance, BrÃ¼gger now attempts an even more complex and daring stunt by purchasing a Liberian diplomatic title and infiltrating one of the most dangerous places on Earth -- the Central African Republic (CAR) -- as an ersatz Ambassador. His purpose? To expose the illegal blood diamond trade -- and the corrupt world of CAR officials, bogus businessmen and shady European and Asian diplomats that it benefits.

Like a tragicomic version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, The Ambassador takes viewers into a rarely-seen world of European influence-peddlers who exploit the African continent -- and the amoral retinue of African officials, petty businessmen and hangers-on who are complicit in the exploitation.

Along the way BrÃ¼gger and his hidden cameras have close encounters with everything from an obese ex-French Legionnaire heading the CAR's state security (who is assassinated shortly after talking to BrÃ¼gger), to armed militias in the middle of Africa's 'Triangle of Death,' to a diamond smuggler with a secret child bride and potential terrorist ties, to a tribe of inebriated pygmies organized by BrÃ¼gger to staff a match factory.

It all makes for a potent, carnivalesque and politically incorrect experience -- and one that exposes the mutual racism (of Europeans toward Africans, and Africans toward Europeans) that makes central Africa such a hotbed of corruption and violence.

In the midst of all this is BrÃ¼gger himself -- a tall, soft-spoken Danish journalist (and son of two Danish newspaper editors) with an ironic sense of humor and an uncanny ability to transform himself into the kind of diffident European grandee that African officials are accustomed to exploiting -- and being exploited by -- well into the 21st century.

Along with my Libertas Film Magazine co-editor Govindini Murty, I sat down with BrÃ¼gger at the Sundance Film Festival to talk about his funny, horrifying and highly controversial new film. With a shaved head, and wearing a skull ring from DC Comics' The Phantom, BrÃ¼gger arrived looking very much the part of an experimental European director.

Apuzzo: What got you interested in [corruption in the Central African Republic] as subject matter for a film?

BrÃ¼gger: I like doing films that divert from their own genre. I wanted to do an Africa documentary without all the usual semiotics and codes of the generic Africa documentary. You know -- NGO people, child soldiers, HIV patients, and so on. But also I wanted a film where you would meet all the people you usually don't get to see - you know, the kingpins, the players, the ministers who live a very secure and comfortable life away from the scrutiny of the media. So I thought that if I could purchase a diplomatic title, I could gain access to this very closed realm of African state affairs and politics. It's pretty much a 'let's-see-what-happens' project. Once we set off to do this, who will we meet? What kind of people will I run into?

Apuzzo: How did you prepare to become a corrupt European diplomat?

BrÃ¼gger: [Laughs.] I prepared for almost three years, because I wanted to really go into detail with my persona. I would go to receptions, embassies in Copenhagen, especially the Belgian embassy because they have a lot of African diplomats coming there. I noticed all the telltale signs, the do's and don'ts of how diplomats behave and carry themselves. For instance, when they're having cocktails they like to fold their napkin into a triangle and then wrap it around the glass. I think it's because they don't want to leave fingerprints, but I don't know for sure. [Laughs.]

The most popular cigarette amongst African diplomats are red Dunhills. The most popular liquor is Johnny Walker Black Label. You know, things of that order. At the same time, I also wanted my 'character' to be packed with various archetypes, and characters from comic books: Dr. MÃ¼ller in Tintin, Bernard Prince (a Belgian comic book hero), even the Man with The Yellow Hat from Curious George.

Apuzzo: I thought that one of the key things that sold the character, so to speak, was his personal narcissism - in terms of the clothing, the demeanor, the portrait that you had of yourself in the diplomatic suite. Was that narcissism a key component of how you interacted with people there?

Murty: In other words, was that narcissism a way of interacting or seeming believable to people of the tyrannical mindset -- since narcissism is a key element of tyranny?

BrÃ¼gger: Exactly. There's narcissism in it, but also: you know the theory about 'mirror neurons'? That when you're meeting somebody you start emulating them, on an unconscious level.

I think it played out well -- that by looking like something from a Graham Greene novel from the '60s or '70s I would attract people who are on to the same fantasies that I display, which is what I think happened. I was the ultimate fantasy of a white businessman-diplomat, because Africans themselves also have fantasies about white people. Usually they deal with these scruffy-looking NGO guys in sweaty T-shirts. I thought that if I would look very rich, very well-off, very eccentric, I would make African ministers think: if he looks like that he has to be very rich, very powerful, probably also very naive and idiotic. But that's OK. You know, 'we will not kill him - we can use him.' So there's also a survival strategy in it.

Apuzzo: Two really key figures out of the whole film were 'Dr. Eastman,' who is this sort of secretive, shadowy European figure pulling the strings and selling the diplomatic titles - and also Emperor Bokassa [former dictator of the Central African Republic], whom you mentioned you had a personal fascination with.

BrÃ¼gger: Yes, very much so.

Apuzzo: Emperor Bokassa representing the worst of 1970s-era African despotism ...

BrÃ¼gger: ... and madness.

Apuzzo: And with 'Dr. Eastman' almost representing the European side of that madness, almost like an Ernst Blofeld or a Bond-villain.

BrÃ¼gger: Exactly.

Apuzzo: It seemed that what allowed you to get away with what you did was that you were fulfilling stereotypes and fantasies that a lot of Africans themselves had about white European businessmen.

BrÃ¼gger: Yes, it has a lot to do with 'magical thinking,' which is something very important in Africa. Bokassa, as you know, he was the ultimate expression of this particular kind of madness. He was this carnivalesque figure trying to emulate Emperor Napoleon. He had this Napoleonic coronation, costing the national GNP times one hundred.

Murty: You had some footage of it in the film.

BrÃ¼gger: Yes, it really is unbelievable. That, of course, also has a lot to do with this very painful relationship of the 'colonial master' with its subject.

What's so interesting is that there is this Werner Herzog film called Echoes from a Somber Empire, and he went in the early '90s to the Central African Republic together with a journalist named Michael Goldsmith, who was almost beaten to death by Bokassa, personally. And they go back to re-track the history of Bokassa - and at the end of the film, we learn that Michael Goldsmith is now dead because he had gone to Liberia to cover the civil war where he gets killed. So there are some very interesting intertextualities between [Herzog's] film and my film.

Murty: You briefly alluded to Conrad's Heart of Darkness in the film. You said that if the Congo is the 'heart of darkness,' then -- and you put a humorous twist on it -- then the Central African Republic is its 'appendix.'

BrÃ¼gger: Yes, exactly.

Murty: So much of what Conrad depicted seems to still be existing in Africa today, over a century later. Were you consciously thinking of Conrad and what he depicted as you set out on your own journey?

BrÃ¼gger: Look at the Head of State Security [the obese ex-French Legionnaire shown in the film]. He's like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now. He is in 'the horror,' you know. [...]

It's a total dog-eat-dog world, and the new boss on the block is definitely going to be the Chinese. They are all very worried about the Chinese. They were personally telling me, you know, 'be careful about the Chinese.' And I would ask, 'but where are they?' 'Are they here at all?' And they would say, 'yes, they are here -- but they are very sneaky. We never see them, but they are here.'

Apuzzo: I wanted to ask you about that, because there was a statement you made in the middle of the film about a 'new Cold War' between the U.S. and China. You're obviously very concerned, having done The Red Chapel, with communist tyrannies, and so forth. Do you actually think there's a coming Cold War between the U.S. and China?

BrÃ¼gger: I think that could very well be. Just look at what China's doing now in the Pacific ... and the scale of what they're doing in China is mind-blowing -- how much money they're bringing in, how many natural resources they're bringing in. They're bankrolling, for instance, Mugabe -- who is like an African Hitler, basically. He is the devil incarnate. By buying his diamonds, they keep his regime going -- which is criminal, I think.

For me, the defining moment with Sino-African politics is China inviting [Sudanese President] Omar al-Bashir to Beijing. He is a wanted criminal, wanted for crimes against humanity [the Darfur genocide], and yet they take him to Beijing and treat him with a state banquet, which is really depraved. And for sure there are tensions in Africa between the West and China, and they will become worse, I believe.

Apuzzo: Changing subjects, there's this idea we have in the West nowadays that it is the West that is exclusively victimizing Africa. And you depict quite a bit of that in your film, obviously. But it seems that the breakthrough of your film is in showing how through these despotic tyrannies Africans also victimize themselves.

BrÃ¼gger: About 8 million people were killed during the time of Belgian rule, but what is going on today has a lot to do with what Africans are doing to themselves. Also, you know, they have this 'zero-sum' thinking. So if it's going well for you, an African would tend to believe 'something is going wrong for me.' It's not possible for you to do good, without somebody else doing bad. So they will start to envy you, and hate you. And that kind of thinking, you know, really destroys a society.

Murty: One of the other things that was heartbreaking was that scene where M. Gilbert is being confronted by his wife at the diamond mine. There's some sort of a fracas, and he says: "don't shame me in front of the white men." That was a very interesting moment, that there's still this sense of inferiority vis-a-vis 'white' culture, and a feeling of subservience, and how that mindset is hard to break.

BrÃ¼gger: It has to do with how complex a thing racism is in Africa - because there's white vs. black racism, but there's also black-on-black, black-on-Chinese, blacks being racist toward white people ...

Apuzzo: Tribal rivalries ...

BrÃ¼gger: ... tribal rivalries, which are also tearing countries apart. So it [racism] is really a very sinister thing in Africa.

Apuzzo: I want to ask you about your relationship with the pygmies. [BrÃ¼gger employs members of a pygmy tribe to work in a match factory that will serve as the cover for his attempted diamond smuggling in the film.] What was that actually like behind the scenes?

BrÃ¼gger: Pretty much as it was in the scenes. Actually, I think they were severely damaged from binge drinking. They do drink a lot, the pygmy people, at least in the vicinity of Bangui. But we were, of course, worlds apart. There wasn't much that connects me with a pygmy. What is there to talk about, you know?

Apuzzo: Let me tell you something that I found interesting about their [the pygmies] presence in the film -- that reminded me of something in The Red Chapel. In The Red Chapel you went over to North Korea with the handicapped comedian, Jacob Nossell -- and the thing that occurred to me watching The Ambassador was that you were actually depicting in both films how handicapped people, or the weak, the infirm -- how they end up being treated in these despotic societies. The way that the pygmies were outcasts from society, just the way your friend Jacob was treated in North Korea.

BrÃ¼gger: That's true. When North Korean people met Jacob, in that regard he was like the black swan. They would ask him if he was drunk, or if he was sick, because they'd never seen a person with his kind of handicap before. As with Albert and Bernard [the pygmies in The Ambassador] and with pygmies in general, they are outcasts, they are abused, they are looked down upon, there's a lot of racism regarding pygmies. And there are these horrible occurrences in the Congo where rebels have killed and eaten pygmies - it's atavistic, to get part of their 'magical powers' inside them. So, you know, the ones paying the highest price for dysfunctional African states are the pygmies.

Murty: It's interesting how so often in societies that live according to mythological thinking the outcast figure -- the sacrificial figure, as it were -- is also considered the figure who can bring magic, and who must be controlled or exploited in some manner. I guess the pygmies were those figures in that community. I just feel very sad for the pygmies, themselves. [...]

You also bring up the fact that it's next to impossible to do business there. For people who are well-meaning, Western people who want to do development in Africa and help -- the whole idea of development being that you don't give people hand-outs, but you build things so they can run them themselves ...

BrÃ¼gger: That doesn't work there.

Murty: Is there any hope? How will things improve there?

BrÃ¼gger: I think it's a situation of utter despair. Some of the diplomats in Bangui told me they believed that within the vicinity of 15 or 20 years the country will no longer exist, because they can barely uphold their own sovereignty. They only have two thousand soldiers to protect an area the size of Texas. They have the Lord's Resistance Army there - this crazy, border-crossing, rebel group headed by a transvestite wizard called Joseph Kony. You have two or three different rebel groups. You have highway robbers from Chad.

Apuzzo: On that point I wanted to ask you something that was touched on in the film - the possibility of M. Gilbert's terrorist ties or connections ...

Murty: ... to an organization that was one of the funders of Hamas.

Apuzzo: What did you make of that?

BrÃ¼gger: Hassan el Bakas? Well, I discovered for sure that Hassan el Bakas exists, and he's a real figure, so that checked out -- what the State Security guy was saying. And that he is a very shady and sinister guy. [...]

Apuzzo: Who are your favorite filmmakers?

BrÃ¼gger: Werner Herzog, of course. A Swedish director called Roy Andersson, he's not very well known outside of Scandinavia. Lars von Trier, he's really a master. Todd Solondz. I like his sense of humor; I really like the film Palindromes -- I think it's his best film ever.

Murty: What about classic Danish filmmakers? For example, Benjamin Christensen in the '20s made Haxan/An Account of Witchcraft and Magic through the Ages, and then also Dreyer, The Passion of Joan of Arc ...

BrÃ¼gger: Of course Dreyer is on my list, you know, he was probably the biggest Danish filmmaker ever.

Apuzzo: This is the second film in a row you've done, the purpose of which is to expose corruption. Is that how you conceive your mission as a filmmaker and as a journalist?

BrÃ¼gger: Of course, journalism and humanism go hand in hand. And I think of them as very humanistic films- - almost to a spiritual level.

Murty: In your films, underneath all of your satire, and your exposure of the horror of what you're seeing -- you have a deeply humanistic vision, a sense of outraged morality at your core. Of course, coming from northern Europe, there's a humanistic tradition that goes back to Erasmus ... I see your films and I also think of paintings by Brueghel or by Hieronymus Bosch in terms of the grotesque human behavior you expose. Do you see yourself as part of that tradition?

BrÃ¼gger: Well you know [looking abashed], I don't think of myself in terms of Brueghel and the classic painters, but Denmark is in many ways the ultimate expression of humanism -- which you can also feel in the way Danish people trust the state. Danish people believe that people of authority are like The Smurfs. Benevolent people. [Laughs.] But that is because there is so much trust among citizens in Denmark, among citizens and the authorities. It's one of the least corrupt societies in the world, you know.

At the same time, it's also a very matriarchal society. Most of the schooling system, the universities, are defined by and led by women. And this creates a situation in which a lot of men of my generation have problems with authority. I sure do. That also in many ways defines the kind of journalism that I do.

Murty: Were there other things in your upbringing that shaped your particular vision as a filmmaker - in terms of either you family, or your education?

BrÃ¼gger: Well of course my mother and father being journalists ... My father was the editor-in-chief of Denmark's biggest business daily, the Financial Times of Denmark, while my mother worked for twenty years at Denmark's biggest tabloid, exposing scandals about politicians. In some ways I am a synthesis of this - the tabloid/yellow press thinking, and the more traditional business journalism. In a way, it is a strange mix of Borat and The Economist.

Murty: You mentioned the humanistic vision of your films - but also about the spiritual element, as well. What is your own spiritual inspiration as you tackle these very difficult subjects?

Apuzzo: In other words, what sustains you as you descend into hell?

BrÃ¼gger: [Laughs.] In Danish we have an expression, "to do the white cut." That is a Danish expression for a lobotomy. It is also a metaphor, to "give yourself the white cut." ... It's an act of letting everything else go. Just doing it.

Murty: Almost like a Zen-type moment. Entering the void. Losing your mindfulness.

BrÃ¼gger: Yes, going 'all-in.' Without any considerations of what will happen to you, what will happen to other people, just doing it. So when I'm in it, I'm 'all-in.'

Maddow Fights Back Against Fox News Pundit's Ugly Attack

2012-02-10T14:08:39Z

Rachel Maddow used her Thursday show to respond to columnist and Fox News pundit Cal Thomas' comment that she should never have been born.

Speaking at a panel about the Obama administration's ruling on contraception, during the annual CPAC conference in Washington on Thursday, Thomas said that Maddow was the "best argument in favor of her parents using contraception." The comments drew a rebuke from Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, who said Thomas should personally and publicly apologize to Maddow. Gay-rights group GLAAD also started a "#gladmaddowwasborn" hashtag on Twitter.

The Obama ruling, which is being overhauled in the wake of a furious campaign from the right, had required most religious organizations (except for churches) to cover their employees' birth control. Though Republicans denounced the ruling as secular tyranny that violated the Constitution, Maddow noted that many of them had not always been so against the idea. She played a clip of Sen. Olympia Snowe arguing for exactly the ruling Obama instituted. She also pointed out that 28 states, and a great many Catholic universities and law schools, already cover contraception.

"Their rules are precisely what was proposed by Olympia Snowe and other Republicans in 2001, but yet they were being denounced as some sort of liberal abomination," Maddow said. "It is in fact such a liberal abomination, that anybody who disagrees with Republicans' position on this today, according to the folks at Fox News, should never have been born at all."

She then played the clip of Thomas talking about her.

"Mr. Fox News person speaking there, I am sorry that you feel that way about me that you wish I had never been born," she said. "Personally, I'm glad that you were born. Otherwise how would Republicans get the special Fox News bat signal that it's time to be outraged now, about what used to be Republicans' own policy idea?"

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kyle Dyer Recovering After Dog Bite On Face During Segment

2012-02-10T13:58:17Z

By Associated Press

DENVER -- A television anchor who was bitten in the face by an 85-pound Argentine Mastiff during a live broadcast was released from a hospital on Thursday.

Kyle Dyer of KUSA-TV was bitten Wednesday while doing a story about the dog's rescue from an icy pond by a firefighter in suburban Lakewood.

Dyer was interviewing firefighter Tyler Sugaski and the dog's owner, Michael Robinson, when the dog, named Max, bit her on the face. Sugaski tended to Dyer in the studio until paramedics arrived and took her to the hospital.

KUSA reported Thursday (http://on9news.tv/wPZXRg) that Dyer was released from Denver Health Medical Center, where she had reconstructive surgery to her lip.

Robinson was cited with failure to have his dog on a leash â Max was off-leash when he fell into the pond â allowing his dog to bite, and failure to have a vaccinated dog. Robinson insisted that Max's vaccinations are up to date.

"Max is a gentle, loving, family dog," Robinson said. "This incident truly is unfortunate and does not reflect Max's disposition towards people."

"Our family and friends pray for a quick recovery and look forward to seeing Ms. Dyer back on-air soon," he said.

Max was impounded at the Denver Animal Shelter, where he was expected to be released back to his owner after a precautionary 10-day quarantine, said Doug Kelley, director of Denver Animal Care and Control.

"We're just checking where the dog has been to make sure there is no other (bite) history or anything else we need to know about," Kelley said.

WATCH: Cooper Rips Karl Lagerfeld For Adele Comments

2012-02-10T13:43:32Z

Anderson Cooper hit out at designer Karl Lagerfeld on his Thursday show over Lagerfeld's comment that singer Adele is "a little too fat."

Lagerfeld backtracked almost immediately after his statement was published, issuing another one apologizing and saying he had been taken "out of context."

During his nightly "Ridiculist" segment, Cooper called Lagerfeld an "Edward Gorey cartoon character" and wondered what context could possibly have made things better.

"She is a little too fat, but only in the brain!" he tried. "She has a really fat brain filled with knowledge!" Cooper then ran through some of Lagerfeld's more eye-opening statements, such as that women who really want to change their looks for good should just get plastic surgery. He also read a quote of Lagerfeld saying, "do we have to know your opinion?"

"I could not have said it better myself," Cooper said.

If there's one reason the CNN host is feeling particularly protective of Adele lately, it could be that he recently profiled her for an upcoming episode of "60 Minutes." She even sang "Rolling In The Deep" personally to him. That's enough to make anybody defend her for life.

Watch Adele sing to Anderson Cooper on "60 Minutes":

Michelle Chen: In Year of Uprisings, Reporters Brave Crackdowns from Wall St. to Tahrir Square

2012-02-10T13:30:48Z

You wouldn't think handling a notebook or a camera could be a hazardous line of work. But according to the latest global Press Freedom Index, abuse and oppression of reporters has made journalism an increasingly risky job in many countries. The past year has even left a notable taint on the U.S. press, despite the country's mythos as a beacon of free expression.

While the United States certainly hasn't descended into the ranks of the most oppressive regimes, the watchdog group Reporters without Borders observes that in 2011 the political barriers and outright attacks facing reporters had led to a steep drop in the rankings--27 places down, to number 47:

In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 [journalists] were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

The most high-profile violations of press freedom took place during the Occupy protests, as reporters were abused by police and otherwise stonewalled by authorities.

Ever-faithful to his 1% cronies, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg moved swiftly to restrict press coverage of Occupy Wall Street actions, barring journalists from Zuoccotti Park. Authorities justified the "media blackout" by insisting that the purpose was "to prevent a situation from getting worse and to protect members of the press." The safety assurances presumably weren't much comfort to the many reporters who got roughed up and arrested while trying to do their jobs.

But as usual, the crackdowns only challenged activists to push back more fiercely as digital images and reports of police brutality and oppression went viral. And much of the heavy lifting was accomplished by a deft, if somewhat chaotic, grassroots media sphere.

Josh Stearns at Free Press tracked dozens of arrests across several Occupy cities through Twitter dispatches.

From cartoonist and journalist Susie Cagle (an occasional contributor to In These Times), who was arrested during the Occupy Oakland strike actions and "held for over 14 hours":

#occupyoakland cops pointing at me, oh great...

#occupyoakland arrested in wagon now...

#occupyoakland I am out and charged. I had my press pass in full view at arrest. One OPD officer recognized me, knew my comics."

And as New York City cops rounded up protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, Alternet's Kristen Gwynne chronicled via tweet:

Trapped with hundreds of people on the Brooklyn Bridge. Cops making mass arrests. We can't move....

Just got out of jail...Still love #OccupyWallSt

But the narrative arc of the Occupy crackdowns on both journalists and protesters reflects a much bigger back story: The political establishment understands the power of the press to foment rebellion, but it does not understand that the media are constantly adapting and growing more polymorphous, and thus harder to crush.

However, while the Occupy-related arrests were a major factor in the lower ranking, the organization also noted failures to address other longstanding press freedom concerns.

Reporters Without Borders' (RWB) D.C. Director Delphine Halgand told In These Times, "this big decline [in ranking] is also due to old concerns we have and which weren't addressed by the Obama administration." These include excessive limits on access to government information (despite the guarantees of the Freedom of Information Act), the lack of a legal protections for confidential journalistic sources; and threats to Internet freedom posed by the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation.

Halgand added that the drop in the index should "play the role of a wake-up call to remind the U.S. [it is] a strong democracy, where the freedom of expression is guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, and journalists have to be able to do their work freely."

But violations in other regions documented by RWB are more troubling, especially in a year when anti-authoritarian popular uprisings were the main headline.

Though the Egyptian Revolution seeded hopes of social transformation across the region, the media activists who stormed Tahrir Square have been clawed back by the military regime, with similar backlash in Bahrain and Yemen.

In 176th-ranked the Syria, "total censorship, widespread surveillance, indiscriminate violence and government manipulation made it impossible for journalists to work," according to RWB. And before Arab Spring-style protests could blossom in Asia, authorities nipped dissent in the bud:

Many arrests were made in Vietnam (172nd). In China (174th), the government responded to regional and local protests and to public impatience with scandals and acts of injustice by feverishly reinforcing its system of controlling news and information, carrying out extrajudicial arrests and stepping up Internet censorship.

There were also some mild successes, such as some improvement in the autonomy of Tunisian journalists following the overthrow of dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. The number of nations in Africa ranking in the Top 50 inched up (despite greater polarization between the best and worst performers on the continent).

Beyond that, the numbers in the index shouldn't obscure the countless breakthroughs led by bloggers and other digital activists who laid the social groundwork for dissent movements--the collective impact of which proves greater than the sum of its parts.

Despite the gaps and pitfalls that beset the Arab Spring countries still enmeshed in pro-democracy struggles, Hagland said, "the media are playing a crucial role... And even if journalists or bloggers are arrested, often they are playing a huge role in the uprising."

Glibly dubbed the "Year of the Protester" by Time magazine, 2011 exposed gaps between the 1% and the rest of us in the economy and civil society, bringing new risks for reporters as well as triumph for emerging media formats. In many cases, members of the media themselves became the news. Yet many ordinary people too became the media. In the United States, amateurs stepped up when conventional journalists failed to do their job of exercising freedom of expression to serve the public interest.

And that's where the real spotlight should be: No one should be punished for telling the truth, whether it's their job to do so, or simply their responsibility as citizens.

Cross-posted from In These Times.

WATCH: Greg Kelly Back On 'Good Day New York' After Rape Claim

2012-02-10T13:30:30Z

NEW YORK -- The New York City police commissioner's TV host son resumed his morning show duties at "Good Day New York" on Friday, telling viewers it had been a tough couple of weeks but he was ready to get back to work after being cleared of the prospect of criminal charges of raping a woman he met for a drink.

It was Greg Kelly's first day back on the job since he took a leave of absence from the show after the allegations surfaced late last month.

Sitting next to his co-host, Rosanna Scotto, a relaxed-looking Kelly said, "It's great to be back. Folks, thank you very much."

"It's was a tough couple of weeks, obviously, for a lot of people. I'm very, very grateful for all the support I got here from my friends at Fox, support from my family, friends, those I care about."

He also thanked his viewers who "have weighed in through social media. Positive remarks. Thank you very much."

Prosecutors on Tuesday said they had not found cause to charge Kelly with a crime.

The woman told authorities that Kelly raped her in her lower Manhattan office after they went out for drinks on Oct. 8, assaulting her while she wasn't capable of consenting to sex, a person familiar with the investigation said. She told authorities she became pregnant from the encounter and had an abortion, according to a law enforcement official. Neither the person nor the law official was authorized to speak publicly, and they spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

The New York Police Department turned the matter over to the district attorney's office when the woman walked into a police station Jan. 24, citing the potential conflict of interest in investigating a son of the commissioner, Raymond Kelly.

During his brief remarks on the show Friday, Kelly did not mention the allegations.

At one point, he put his hand on Scotto's and said he was especially grateful "to this lady who sits next to me every day."

The show airs on the local Fox affiliate, WNYW-TV. A former Marine, Kelly has appeared on "Good Day New York" since 2008.

___

Associated Press writer Colleen Long in New York City contributed to this report.

WATCH: Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony Talk Working Together On 'Ellen'

2012-02-10T13:27:14Z

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony may no longer be man and wife, but that hasn't stopped them from collaborating on their reality show, "Q'Viva! The Chosen." The seemingly jovial couple talked about working together during upcoming episode of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show."

"We laugh a lot," Lopez told Degeneres, though director and choreographer Jamie King had a different impression.

"Not always," he said, laughing along with the couple. "I find myself in the middle, kind of refereeing, sometimes. It's fantastic."

The couple went on to discuss a playful slap Lopez delivered to Anthony while filming. Lopez claimed, "They put a sound effect in there for the live broadcast!"

All jokes aside, Anthony recently talked to "Entertainment Tonight" about teaming up professionally with his former wife, and he admitted they are working through some of their relationship issues on the show.

"We don't have communication issues, we just don't communicate," he told Nancy O'Dell. "When you don't do it, you don't have a problem ... The way it played out was really gratifying and really fulfilling. Now we're figuring out how this plays in."

Check out clips of the couple on "Ellen" above, and Anthony's "Entertainment Tonight" clip below!

WATCH: Bill O'Reilly Slams Suspended CNN Pundit

2012-02-10T13:23:15Z

Bill O'Reilly tore into suspended CNN pundit Roland Martin on his Thursday show, criticizing him for disparaging comments he has made about conservative news hosts and organized religion.

CNN suspended Martin indefinitely for a series of tweets he sent on Super Bowl Sunday. Martin tweeted that people should "smack the ish" out of male fans of David Beckham's Super Bowl ad. He also made fun of a Patriots player who arrived wearing pink. Martin's tweets were perceived as advocating violence against members of the LGBT community.

O'Reilly called Martin's suspension "ironic" and thought that "karma may have caught up" with him. O'Reilly said that Martin has branded people, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, as bigots. He added that Martin called Tea Party supporters "stupid," and organized religion "desperately sexist."

Wayne Besen of gay rights organization Truth Wins Out joined O'Reilly on the air. O'Reilly said that Martin claims his tweets were really about soccer and not about the LGBT community. "He's saying he's mocking soccer players, not gay people," O'Reilly said of Martin.

Besen disagreed with O'Reilly, claiming the tweets were definitely about gay people. After a short back and forth about Martin's intentions, O'Reilly said, "I couldn't care less about Roland Martin. I don't follow him. I dont care what he says. I think he's a moron."

WATCH:

WATCH: Obama Shoots Down Reporters Over Controversial Ruling

2012-02-10T13:19:32Z

President Obama shot down reporters pestering him for a comment on his controversial ruling on contraception during a Thursday photo op in the Oval Office.

Obama was meeting with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, but at least one reporter was not interested in debt crises or the future of the European Union.

"Is there anything on the contraception controversy that you can share with us?" he asked.

"Come on, guys," Obama shot back.

The ruling, which mandates that most religious employers pay for their workers' contraception, has suddenly become a political flashpoint, and the Obama administration is reportedly set to come up with a compromise sometime on Friday.

On Thursday's "Hardball," Chris Matthews played the footage of the encounter in the Oval Office.

Big Mike's Astonishing 'Fat Chef' Weight Loss

2012-02-10T13:17:48Z

"Fat Chef" (Thurs., 10 p.m. EST on Food Network) combines two of the hottest trends on reality television right now-- cooking and weight loss.

On Thursday night's episode, viewers followed Mike Digby on his journey toward a healthier life.

The chef weighed over 300 lbs when he applied to be on the show, and he knew he needed to lose weight for the sake of his health: "I was on a road to death." He was also sick and tired of being called "Big Mike."

With the help of therapists, nutritionists and trainers, Mike spent 16 weeks on a grueling diet and fitness regime and underwent an astonishing transformation.

Fat chef no more!

When trainer Brett Hoebel presented the newly svelte Mike to assembled family and friends, he told them that Mike's goal had been to lose 80 lbs. However, he had blown through that to lose an astonishing 100lbs.

Check out the original casting call for "Fat Chef," which airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. EST on Food Network.

TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.

Bob Cesca: The Bob & Chez Show 2/9/12

2012-02-10T13:13:21Z

Listen and subscribe on iTunes (it's FREE!)
Download the mp3 (55 minutes, 22mb)
Listen on your smartphone via Stitcher.com
Listen in Washington, DC, Sundays 3-4PM on 1480AM

This week's show highlights: Contraception and Catholics; The New Obama-Muslim Meme; The Republican War Against Women Continues; Feminism Twitter War; Roland Martin Suspended and Erickson Still Employed; Homophobia; Media People Say Stupid Things; Ron Paul to Kill National Parks; Americans Screwed Themselves; and much more! RSS Feed

Subscribe to the Bob & Chez Show After Party. Our second and totally uncensored show!

The Bob & Chez Show is a spontaneous, entertaining and unfiltered one-hour political discussion between Huffington Post bloggers Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza. We cover the news media, presidential politics and whatever else is happening in the world, including our personal lives and pop culture.