Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.

Popular Posts Today

Reply All | Letters: The 11.17.13 Issue

Written By Unknown on Sabtu, 30 November 2013 | 18.38

THE DREAM BOAT

Having grown up in Australia as an immigrant, I am dismayed at my country's policies. Without the populace noticing, the Australian government has created a second class of people: boat people. These individuals are turned into beads on some sadistic abacus. The proposed 2011 "people swap" — whereby 800 asylum seekers who had arrived in Australia were sent to Malaysia and 4,000 refugees whose claims were processed in Malaysia were to be accepted in Australia — epitomized this. Your article has surfaced on social media and in conversation here. People are finally engaging with the humanity of the issue, instead of with the numbers. I cannot thank you enough. KRISTÓF WING, Tasmania, Australia

As an Australian who works with refugees, I travel regularly to Akkar, the region in northern Lebanon that is home to some of those who lost their lives at sea off the Indonesian coast (and to whom you refer in your article). The paradox is that this region, despite offering little for its own people, is host to thousands of Syrian refugees. Many Lebanese families have shared their homes with total strangers, squeezing their families into one or two rooms of their houses to make space for a Syrian family. This is in stark contrast to the frantic, unfounded hysteria with which my government in Australia reacts to asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Thank you, Luke Mogelson and Joel van Houdt, for risking your own lives to write this article and for demonstrating the lengths to which people will go to secure what we take for granted. YANYA VISKOVICH, Beirut, Lebanon

Your article made me confront my own moral dilemma, the same one the Australian people and politicians have to face. I grapple with my tolerance for my own selfishness and the knowledge that there is no pot of gold for these refugees at the end of their imaginary rainbow. Either choice is tough. If you turn the refugees away, they face poor future prospects at home. If you accept them into your country, they face poor future prospects and could potentially become disruptive locally. Thank you for your thoughtful and gripping writing. And for making me think and feel. ROBERT S. MILLER, Danbury, Conn., posted on nytimes.com

A SUPERSIZE FAMILY

I am so conflicted by this story. I'm not anti-adoption — three years ago, my wife and I adopted a 3-year-old. But Misty and Jon's children have been transferred from foster care into mini-orphanages. The parents can't take care of all of these special-needs kids without help from the older children. It's unfair that Misty's daughter Lauren had to quit sports to help care for her siblings. And how did the social workers place children into a home that uses spanking for punishment? I'm not sure the adoption agencies, the social workers and courts are acting in the best interests of the children. CLAUDE LEWIN, Tenafly, N.J., posted on nytimes.com

Misty and Jon are rightfully praised for opening their home. But your article missed an opportunity to critically examine the foster-care system from which this couple adopted so many children. The paucity of families willing to adopt is not the main problem; it's that too many children languish in the system when they could be safely returned to their loving parents. Of the children who are in foster care, 47 percent of their parents have trouble paying for basic necessities. Yet under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, states are encouraged to invest in adoption instead of reunifying families. Your story of the kind saviors who rescue children perpetuates the misguided view that the government can best care for children by removing them from their homes. PATRICK CLARK, Staff Lawyer, Family Defense Practice, The Bronx Defenders, N.Y.

"Always blown away by women who 'know' they want large families of '6-8.' Who are you?!" @elizabethm_j, via Twitter

Email letters to magazine@nytimes.com or post comments at nytimes.com/magazine. Letters should include the writer's name, address and daytime telephone number. We are unable to acknowledge or return unpublished submissions. Letters and comments are edited for length and clarity. The address of The New York Times Magazine is 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

Innovation: Who Made That Spork?

Jens Mortensen for The New York Times

The last time you picked up a "spork" — whether a plastic one for your fast-food meal or the titanium one you took on your camping trip — you might have had the fleeting thought that the clever spoon/fork feels almost futuristic, or at least from a not-so-distant past. Actually, it has been around for centuries.

According to Bee Wilson, author of "Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat," utensils with the tines of a fork but the cup of a spoon have been used for eating candied fruits since late medieval times. "So it's not a new idea at all." But so-called sucket forks, unlike the typical fast-food sporks, were double-ended, with a spoon at one end of the handle for syrup, and tines at the other for spearing sweets.

By the 1800s, terrapin forks (for eating turtles) and ice cream forks featured the typical spork shape — a spoonlike bowl that extends into tines. (These, of course, were made of silver, not plastic.) A Rhode Island doctor named Samuel W. Francis filed an early patent for a sporklike utensil in 1874. Titled "Combined Knives, Forks and Spoons," it featured a spoon with tines sticking out the front end and a blade tacked onto one side. "The three elements," Francis wrote, "are thus grouped together most compactly, constituting an article which can be very conveniently used for many purposes."

A similar three-in-one combo was branded a "splayd" in the 1940s, when William McArthur, an Australian, introduced it in his wife's Sydney cafe. Mass-produced in the 1960s, it became a popular wedding gift and an essential tool for buffets and barbecues.

Recent innovations include the "spife," a spoon with a serrated handle (marketed for eating Kiwi fruit) and the "knork," a fork with a cutting edge, celebrated on "Top Chef."

"Spork" didn't become a trademark until 1970, 61 years after the word first appeared in a supplement to the Century dictionary. In the decades since, the spork has become widespread: It's cheaper than buying two separate utensils and light to carry. It's also valued for being a hybrid, as the various uses to which the word is put suggest.

SPORK! a nonprofit group, advocates for "individuals who have a physical, mental or invisible difference" — the "beloved sporks of our society." In the 2010 independent film "Spork," the titular character is a hermaphrodite.

"It's neither one thing nor the other," Wilson says of the popular spoon/fork. "It swings both ways."

SPORK-FED

Joachim Nordwall designed a two-ended spork — serrated fork at one end, spoon at the other — for the Swedish company Light My Fire in 2003, which has sold more than 20 million units across 52 countries.

When you designed your spork, did you know the spork had been invented before? No. I was not familiar with it at all.

How did you come up with the design? I got this mission from Light My Fire to design a meal kit for going out in the woods. Most of the competitors had metal cutleries — one spoon, one fork and maybe one knife — which was very cumbersome and difficult to store. I thought, "Can we make it more efficient?" I started out with the spoon, and was thinking, "Where can I put the fork?" So I twisted it around and tried it out, and there it was.

Light My Fire's spork now comes in lefty and different sizes — for kids, for serving. The demand came from consumers. In the beginning we had one size, which came with the meal kit, but it became really, really popular, which we weren't prepared for. We understood that we should sell the spork separately, and accommodate different sizes. Plus, at the time I had small kids, and the original spork was a bit large for them.

Any highlights for you since the spork had its debut? The Swedish king used the spork, and I saw Boy Scouts using it on the morning news. And I saw a Swedish politician, who was celebrating her 50th birthday or something, talking about preparing the dinner table with a spork.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

The 6th Floor: The Lives They Loved: Submit Your Memories

We are once again inviting readers to contribute to The Lives They Lived, the magazine's celebration of people who died in the past year. We would like photographs that illustrate a moment in the life of someone close to you who died in 2013. This is not a place for eulogies or obituaries, but for stories. (View submissions from 2012 and 2011.)

Your submission may run on The New York Times website or in the issue of the magazine that comes out on Dec. 29, 2013. If you would like to be featured in the magazine, it is especially important to provide working contact information and submit a high-resolution image (at least 300k or 300 d.p.i.), and that we receive your submission no later than Dec. 15.

Please understand that we can publish only a selection of all of the submissions.

We appreciate your willingness to share your stories and photos with us.

Thank you for your submission.

By submitting to us, you are promising that the content is original, doesn't plagiarize from anyone or infringe a copyright or trademark, doesn't violate anybody's rights and isn't libelous or otherwise unlawful or misleading. You are agreeing that we can use your submission in all manner and media of The New York Times and that we shall have the right to authorize third parties to do so. And you agree to the rules of our Member Agreement, found online at our website.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

It’s the Economy: Why Mayors Can’t Combat Income Inequality

Written By Unknown on Jumat, 29 November 2013 | 18.38

Illustration by Kelsey Dake

At the not-yet-completed One57, a luxury residential tower off Central Park, the unsold floor-through apartments are going for $53 million and up. The penthouse sold for more than $90 million. One57 will be the tallest residence in the Western Hemisphere (until another luxury high-rise on Park Avenue is completed in 2015), and on a clear day, residents on the top floors should be able to just make out the South Bronx.

Deep thoughts this week:

1. New York is more unequal than ever.

2. So is everywhere else.

3. There's nothing the mayor can do about it.

4. Except make it worse — which may not be a bad thing.

It's the Economy

A large proportion of the buyers likely won't live in New York; they will keep the units as decadent pieds-à-terre. I initially felt anger and disgust at the idea of absentee billionaires hoarding Manhattan real estate, making the city even more unaffordable while they live like princes in Moscow or Hong Kong or wherever. But then I did the math. Assuming that their money has to go somewhere, it's not so bad that these billionaires choose to put a chunk of it here. Any city official in Dayton or, for that matter, Philadelphia would do anything to have such problems. Yet frustration with becoming a central node in the global network of massive wealth was a centerpiece of New York's recent mayoral campaign.

Bill de Blasio didn't mention One57 by name in the speech that defined his candidacy, the one in which he described a tale of two cities — one obscenely rich, the other miserably poor — but you could argue that his campaign against inequality wouldn't have been so successful were it not for the proliferation of places like this. But what the tower's affluent quasi residents really make clear is that New York's inequality is hardly a local phenomenon. Most New Yorkers were born somewhere else. Nearly half speak a foreign language at home, and countless others come to the city from somewhere else in the United States. New York's inequality is determined by events taking place far beyond the Hudson River or, even, the Atlantic Ocean.

Benjamin Barber, the political theorist and author of "If Mayors Ruled the World," is wildly biased in favor of de Blasio. He says he voted for him, has met with him to offer advice and works at CUNY, an institution the mayor-elect promises to fund generously. For all that, Barber has not been swayed by de Blasio's soaring rhetoric about reducing the gap between rich and poor. "Obviously, he wouldn't want to disengage New York City from its role in global finance, real estate," he said. De Blasio knows that being mayor of the financial capital of the United States offers great benefits. After all, nearly every significant transaction in the United States — from an Iowa farmer's line of credit to a major bond issue in Maine — runs through some desk in Manhattan where somebody gets a cut. And the city gets a cut of that cut.

Barber points out that mayors, unlike legislators, are generally less dogmatic once they are sworn into office. "The distance between Bloomberg and de Blasio is not as great as the media — and the two men — have made out," he said. "Being a mayor is about solving problems and not about striking ideological poses."

Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard, is Barber's political opposite. His book, "The Triumph of the City," is an eloquent attack on many of the policies de Blasio argues for, like targeted protections for certain kinds of industries and expansion of government housing. But appropriately, for all their differences, Glaeser and Barber agree that ideology doesn't matter much when mayors actually govern. There are policies that could reduce inequality on the national level, like improving schools everywhere or altering the tax code, Glaeser points out, but the opposite is true on a local level; when local governments improve their schools or create more progressive taxes, they may increase inequality locally by attracting more poor people. Glaeser says one way to significantly lessen inequality in the city would be to aggressively repel either the very poor or the very rich. De Blasio, thankfully, will do neither.

Much has been made of de Blasio's call for higher taxes on the rich to finance better education for the poor. But his actual policy proposal is the tiniest possible tweak. People making more than half a million a year will pay an additional half a percent in New York City income tax. (For most, this will mean a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year.) His spokesman, Jonathan Rosen, explained that the increase was designed to help bring the children of poor New Yorkers into the middle class without encouraging wealthy people to leave the city because of the tax burden.

Whatever de Blasio does, Glaeser argues, the city will continue to attract both the superrich and the poor, and there will be less space occupied by the middle class. The gap between rich and poor has grown significantly over the past 35 years in nearly every nation, and especially in large cities. "Globalization and new technology have made cities more, not less, valuable," Glaeser said. This is because the most profitable businesses no longer involve heavy machinery; they are rooted in ideas, which, it turns out, spread most effectively when knowledge workers are densely packed together. The top handful of major metropolitan areas — New York, Chicago, Los Angeles — account for a hugely disproportionate share of overall U.S. economic growth, Glaeser says. There is every reason to believe this trend will continue and, most likely, increase. That will draw even more of the high-earning elite to big cities and many of the poor, too, seeking jobs and assistance in these centers of economic growth.

Barber and Glaeser agreed that however powerless de Blasio may be over these historic global trends, he does have one crucial power that he has already begun using: He can set a tone for the city as a place open to the poor and the middle class. His campaign to fight inequality could, paradoxically, make New York even more unequal. But if that inequality is a byproduct of New York's serving as a global symbol of opportunity, de Blasio's landslide victory suggests that most New Yorkers will be thrilled.

Adam Davidson is co-founder of NPR's "Planet Money," a podcast and blog.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

Eat: Better Than a Meat Lollipop

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International New York Times.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

How Is Hamid Karzai Still Standing?

Christoph Bangert for The New York Times

Hamid Karzai at the presidential palace in Kabul.

The Karzai family graveyard lies a few miles outside Kandahar, on the edge of the village of Karz. On the day I drove there, burned-out cars stood rusting by the sides of the road, children splashed through open drains and bullet holes riddled the mud walls opposite checkpoints. Amid all this, the graveyard stood out — gleaming, immaculate. Straggling bougainvillea and mulberry trees blossomed over the calligraphic tiles topping the cream-colored walls. Through the double gates were lines of cypresses. In the middle stood a domed enclosure containing the graves of the clan elders.

Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty Images

Qayum Karzai in October announcing his candidacy for the Afghan presidency.

Hamid Karzai was entering the final lap of his presidency, and I had traveled to Karz with Mahmood, one of the president's elder brothers, accompanied by a phalanx of his bodyguards. Afghanistan's presidential election is set for April, and as the deadline for registering candidates approached, the country's future seemed to hang in part on the fraught internal family politics of the Karzais. Hamid is ineligible to run for a third term, and it had been long rumored in Kabul that he would anoint his brother Qayum as his successor. Mahmood had made it clear that he wanted the presidency to stay in the family; he had even begun to raise campaign funds for Qayum, just as he once had for Hamid.

So far, however, the president had been publicly silent on the subject, and Qayum had yet to tip his hand. Mahmood's business dealings — banking scandals and supposedly dodgy real estate deals — had long been perceived as Hamid's Achilles' heel, and it remained unclear whether family loyalty would trump the president's growing preoccupation with his own legacy. All this, along with Karzai's angry rhetoric against the alleged misdeeds of his American backers, had caused some tensions around the family table. "I don't feel comfortable talking to Hamid these days," Mahmood said as we rode in his armored Land Cruiser, sandwiched between pickup trucks full of troops. "These ridiculous conspiracy theories. And his cynical view of the West. These ideas aren't helping Afghanistan. I don't think he understands the importance of a good economic policy."

On arrival, however, the sight of the massed Karzai dead quickly brought back Mahmood's sense of dynastic solidarity. "See over there — the grave with the old carved headstone?" he said. "That was my grandfather, the real leader of the family. He migrated to Karz from the west of the province and bought this land."

He then pointed to a poster of a mustached man on the guardhouse: "That's my uncle, Khalil." Khalil was killed in the 1980s. Some say he was murdered in a family dispute, but Mahmood told me he was assassinated during the war with the Soviets. "And over there," he continued, "another uncle. Also assassinated."

We walked into the domed mausoleum where two recumbent gravestones were covered with pink plastic flowers: "My father's grave," he said, lowering his voice to a whisper. "He was shot dead leaving a mosque. And that, by his side, is Ahmed Wali, my half brother."

He didn't bother saying what we both knew, that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the head of Kandahar's provincial council, effectively governor of Kandahar and the man suspected by the West of controlling part of the Afghan heroin trade, but who also helped the C.I.A. operate an anti-Taliban paramilitary group, was himself killed by a trusted member of his inner circle. The shooting took place not far from where we were standing, two years earlier, almost to the day. I asked if anyone else in the family died violently. "Many!" Mahmood replied. He pointed to the different grave plots: "One, two, three . . . altogether about eight. Maybe more."

From the graveyard, we headed on into Karz, where the brothers spent their childhood. Low mud-brick houses flanked the road. "Imagine having to live in these conditions!" Mahmood said. "If I had my way, I'd demolish the entire village, rehouse everyone in apartments and turn this space over to agriculture." After decades in the United States, where he started an Afghan restaurant chain, it all seemed a bit of a surprise to him: "Imagine hanging up goat meat in the sun in this heat! So unhygienic. . . . And all these people just sitting there. Do they have nothing to do, for crying out loud? Just look how weak the retail community is here. Call these shops? What era are we in — the Roman Empire?"

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 27, 2013

An earlier version of this article misquoted Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother Qayum. He said, "the Russian government built roads." He did not say that "even the Russians gave us better buildings and roads than the Americans have done."


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

Eat: Better Than a Meat Lollipop

Written By Unknown on Kamis, 28 November 2013 | 18.38

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International New York Times.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

It’s the Economy: Why Mayors Can’t Combat Income Inequality

Illustration by Kelsey Dake

At the not-yet-completed One57, a luxury residential tower off Central Park, the unsold floor-through apartments are going for $53 million and up. The penthouse sold for more than $90 million. One57 will be the tallest residence in the Western Hemisphere (until another luxury high-rise on Park Avenue is completed in 2015), and on a clear day, residents on the top floors should be able to just make out the South Bronx.

Deep thoughts this week:

1. New York is more unequal than ever.

2. So is everywhere else.

3. There's nothing the mayor can do about it.

4. Except make it worse — which may not be a bad thing.

It's the Economy

A large proportion of the buyers likely won't live in New York; they will keep the units as decadent pieds-à-terre. I initially felt anger and disgust at the idea of absentee billionaires hoarding Manhattan real estate, making the city even more unaffordable while they live like princes in Moscow or Hong Kong or wherever. But then I did the math. Assuming that their money has to go somewhere, it's not so bad that these billionaires choose to put a chunk of it here. Any city official in Dayton or, for that matter, Philadelphia would do anything to have such problems. Yet frustration with becoming a central node in the global network of massive wealth was a centerpiece of New York's recent mayoral campaign.

Bill de Blasio didn't mention One57 by name in the speech that defined his candidacy, the one in which he described a tale of two cities — one obscenely rich, the other miserably poor — but you could argue that his campaign against inequality wouldn't have been so successful were it not for the proliferation of places like this. But what the tower's affluent quasi residents really make clear is that New York's inequality is hardly a local phenomenon. Most New Yorkers were born somewhere else. Nearly half speak a foreign language at home, and countless others come to the city from somewhere else in the United States. New York's inequality is determined by events taking place far beyond the Hudson River or, even, the Atlantic Ocean.

Benjamin Barber, the political theorist and author of "If Mayors Ruled the World," is wildly biased in favor of de Blasio. He says he voted for him, has met with him to offer advice and works at CUNY, an institution the mayor-elect promises to fund generously. For all that, Barber has not been swayed by de Blasio's soaring rhetoric about reducing the gap between rich and poor. "Obviously, he wouldn't want to disengage New York City from its role in global finance, real estate," he said. De Blasio knows that being mayor of the financial capital of the United States offers great benefits. After all, nearly every significant transaction in the United States — from an Iowa farmer's line of credit to a major bond issue in Maine — runs through some desk in Manhattan where somebody gets a cut. And the city gets a cut of that cut.

Barber points out that mayors, unlike legislators, are generally less dogmatic once they are sworn into office. "The distance between Bloomberg and de Blasio is not as great as the media — and the two men — have made out," he said. "Being a mayor is about solving problems and not about striking ideological poses."

Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard, is Barber's political opposite. His book, "The Triumph of the City," is an eloquent attack on many of the policies de Blasio argues for, like targeted protections for certain kinds of industries and expansion of government housing. But appropriately, for all their differences, Glaeser and Barber agree that ideology doesn't matter much when mayors actually govern. There are policies that could reduce inequality on the national level, like improving schools everywhere or altering the tax code, Glaeser points out, but the opposite is true on a local level; when local governments improve their schools or create more progressive taxes, they may increase inequality locally by attracting more poor people. Glaeser says one way to significantly lessen inequality in the city would be to aggressively repel either the very poor or the very rich. De Blasio, thankfully, will do neither.

Much has been made of de Blasio's call for higher taxes on the rich to finance better education for the poor. But his actual policy proposal is the tiniest possible tweak. People making more than half a million a year will pay an additional half a percent in New York City income tax. (For most, this will mean a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year.) His spokesman, Jonathan Rosen, explained that the increase was designed to help bring the children of poor New Yorkers into the middle class without encouraging wealthy people to leave the city because of the tax burden.

Whatever de Blasio does, Glaeser argues, the city will continue to attract both the superrich and the poor, and there will be less space occupied by the middle class. The gap between rich and poor has grown significantly over the past 35 years in nearly every nation, and especially in large cities. "Globalization and new technology have made cities more, not less, valuable," Glaeser said. This is because the most profitable businesses no longer involve heavy machinery; they are rooted in ideas, which, it turns out, spread most effectively when knowledge workers are densely packed together. The top handful of major metropolitan areas — New York, Chicago, Los Angeles — account for a hugely disproportionate share of overall U.S. economic growth, Glaeser says. There is every reason to believe this trend will continue and, most likely, increase. That will draw even more of the high-earning elite to big cities and many of the poor, too, seeking jobs and assistance in these centers of economic growth.

Barber and Glaeser agreed that however powerless de Blasio may be over these historic global trends, he does have one crucial power that he has already begun using: He can set a tone for the city as a place open to the poor and the middle class. His campaign to fight inequality could, paradoxically, make New York even more unequal. But if that inequality is a byproduct of New York's serving as a global symbol of opportunity, de Blasio's landslide victory suggests that most New Yorkers will be thrilled.

Adam Davidson is co-founder of NPR's "Planet Money," a podcast and blog.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

How Is Hamid Karzai Still Standing?

Christoph Bangert for The New York Times

Hamid Karzai at the presidential palace in Kabul.

The Karzai family graveyard lies a few miles outside Kandahar, on the edge of the village of Karz. On the day I drove there, burned-out cars stood rusting by the sides of the road, children splashed through open drains and bullet holes riddled the mud walls opposite checkpoints. Amid all this, the graveyard stood out — gleaming, immaculate. Straggling bougainvillea and mulberry trees blossomed over the calligraphic tiles topping the cream-colored walls. Through the double gates were lines of cypresses. In the middle stood a domed enclosure containing the graves of the clan elders.

Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty Images

Qayum Karzai in October announcing his candidacy for the Afghan presidency.

Hamid Karzai was entering the final lap of his presidency, and I had traveled to Karz with Mahmood, one of the president's elder brothers, accompanied by a phalanx of his bodyguards. Afghanistan's presidential election is set for April, and as the deadline for registering candidates approached, the country's future seemed to hang in part on the fraught internal family politics of the Karzais. Hamid is ineligible to run for a third term, and it had been long rumored in Kabul that he would anoint his brother Qayum as his successor. Mahmood had made it clear that he wanted the presidency to stay in the family; he had even begun to raise campaign funds for Qayum, just as he once had for Hamid.

So far, however, the president had been publicly silent on the subject, and Qayum had yet to tip his hand. Mahmood's business dealings — banking scandals and supposedly dodgy real estate deals — had long been perceived as Hamid's Achilles' heel, and it remained unclear whether family loyalty would trump the president's growing preoccupation with his own legacy. All this, along with Karzai's angry rhetoric against the alleged misdeeds of his American backers, had caused some tensions around the family table. "I don't feel comfortable talking to Hamid these days," Mahmood said as we rode in his armored Land Cruiser, sandwiched between pickup trucks full of troops. "These ridiculous conspiracy theories. And his cynical view of the West. These ideas aren't helping Afghanistan. I don't think he understands the importance of a good economic policy."

On arrival, however, the sight of the massed Karzai dead quickly brought back Mahmood's sense of dynastic solidarity. "See over there — the grave with the old carved headstone?" he said. "That was my grandfather, the real leader of the family. He migrated to Karz from the west of the province and bought this land."

He then pointed to a poster of a mustached man on the guardhouse: "That's my uncle, Khalil." Khalil was killed in the 1980s. Some say he was murdered in a family dispute, but Mahmood told me he was assassinated during the war with the Soviets. "And over there," he continued, "another uncle. Also assassinated."

We walked into the domed mausoleum where two recumbent gravestones were covered with pink plastic flowers: "My father's grave," he said, lowering his voice to a whisper. "He was shot dead leaving a mosque. And that, by his side, is Ahmed Wali, my half brother."

He didn't bother saying what we both knew, that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the head of Kandahar's provincial council, effectively governor of Kandahar and the man suspected by the West of controlling part of the Afghan heroin trade, but who also helped the C.I.A. operate an anti-Taliban paramilitary group, was himself killed by a trusted member of his inner circle. The shooting took place not far from where we were standing, two years earlier, almost to the day. I asked if anyone else in the family died violently. "Many!" Mahmood replied. He pointed to the different grave plots: "One, two, three . . . altogether about eight. Maybe more."

From the graveyard, we headed on into Karz, where the brothers spent their childhood. Low mud-brick houses flanked the road. "Imagine having to live in these conditions!" Mahmood said. "If I had my way, I'd demolish the entire village, rehouse everyone in apartments and turn this space over to agriculture." After decades in the United States, where he started an Afghan restaurant chain, it all seemed a bit of a surprise to him: "Imagine hanging up goat meat in the sun in this heat! So unhygienic. . . . And all these people just sitting there. Do they have nothing to do, for crying out loud? Just look how weak the retail community is here. Call these shops? What era are we in — the Roman Empire?"

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 27, 2013

An earlier version of this article misquoted Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother Qayum. He said, "the Russian government built roads." He did not say that "even the Russians gave us better buildings and roads than the Americans have done."


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

The Movies Issue: Lights, Camera and, for the First Time, Dialogue

Written By Unknown on Rabu, 27 November 2013 | 18.38

By Catherine Spangler

The Making of 'Making a Scene': A behind-the-scenes look at the year's best performers starring in 11 original (very) short films directed by the Oscar-winning cinematographer Janusz Kaminski.

Movies exist, above all, to exalt the human face, and movie stars are people whose faces possess the mysterious power to make us look at them and want to keep looking. This is less a matter of beauty or of sexual magnetism than of individuality, of specialness. We like watching them pretend partly because we think we can see through the disguise. Their particular, paradoxical art is to bring credibility to the artifice. They are always themselves, even as their identities change from one role to the next. Seeing is believing.

But so is hearing. Since the beginning of the sound era, the most indelible faces on the screen have often possessed equally memorable voices. With eyes closed, we can still pick out Bogart and Bacall, Clint Eastwood and Cary Grant, Bette Davis and Marilyn Monroe. And many stars are as closely identified with words — "You talkin' to me?" "Frankly, my dear . . . " — as they are with poses and actions.

For reasons both technical and aesthetic, the magazine's annual great-performers portfolio has traditionally favored sight over sound. These pages don't talk, and the videos that in recent years have accompanied the pictures online have also been wordless. We have dressed actors in costumes, placed them on make-believe sets and invited them to play various villains, heroes and fantasy figures — or sometimes just themselves — but we have never given them lines to speak.

Until this year. For the first time, we commissioned lines from an eclectic and talented group of screenwriters, including Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Andrew Bujalski, Nicole Holofcener and J. C. Chandor — writers responsible for some of the best scripts of 2013. We asked them each to write a single line for us — not a scene, a script or a scenario, but simply an intriguing, amusing or captivating line of dialogue. Then we gave these lines to one of the great movie artists of our time: the cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, a two-time Oscar winner and six-time nominee for his work on films like "Lincoln," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and "Schindler's List." Kaminski used these lines as inspiration to create 11 original (very) short films. Each short evokes a style or genre of the cinematic past and stars an actor who gave an especially memorable performance in 2013. The complete videos can be seen and heard here. But even in the photo portfolio, the voices are loud and clear.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

The Movies Issue: 14 Screenwriters Writing

Screenwriters famously get no respect. It probably doesn't help that one of the most famous quotes about the trade boils down to money, competition and idiots. Herman J. Mankiewicz, in an often-cited telegram sent from Hollywood to his fellow writer Ben Hecht, promised: "Millions are to be grabbed out here, and your only competition is idiots. Don't let this get around."

So in the starry constellation of literary pursuits, screenwriters have always existed, reputationally if not financially, somewhere due south of novelists and maybe southeast of poets and playwrights. With their riches and big-screen credits, people who wrote for the movies used to be able to at least lord over lowly TV writers, but even that dynamic has reversed in recent years. TV writers are now routinely lauded as auteurs. Screenwriters are still screenwriters, i.e., the people who write the scripts that the directors and actors will eventually rewrite, mangle or ignore.

But, oh, what scripts: 2013 was an excellent year for the written word as spoken on-screen. "Before Midnight," written by its stars (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) and its director (Richard Linklater), is basically the third installment in a captivating conversation that has been going on for 18 years. At the other end of the loquaciousness spectrum, there's "All Is Lost," written by J. C. Chandor, a screenplay that includes fewer lines of dialogue than there are sentences in this introduction. Sarah Polley brought her storytelling powers to bear on a quasi documentary, "Stories We Tell," while Nicole Holofcener, with "Enough Said," continued her streak as the patron saint of literate neurotics (both on-screen and off). Greta Gerwig (along with the director Noah Baumbach) wrote lines, then gave them voice, as the title character in "Frances Ha." Andrew Bujalski somehow made a computer chess tournament exciting. Spike Jonze wrote a classic love story, a tale of boy meets operating system.

It's notable that many of these writers — most, in fact — also directed their own scripts (Bell, Bujalski, Chandor, Holofcener, Jonze, Linklater, Polley), and several also star in the films they wrote (Bell, Delpy, Gerwig, Hawke, Seth Rogen). Here, though, we simply want to focus on their work as writers and highlight the written word — that part of the process that makes the rest of the process possible.

We asked each of these writers to provide a single line of original dialogue, which were then used as inspiration for 11 short films. We also asked a few of them to pass on a writing tip or two, which you can find below. (Aspiring screenwriters, take note: There are still millions to be made in Hollywood, but the competition is much more daunting.) Mostly, though, we want to celebrate the part of a film that starts on the page and ends up, in the best cases, inscribed onto our memories. In other words, the words.

GRETA GERWIG

Notable writing credits: "Frances Ha" (2013)

What screenplay inspired you to become a screenwriter? I think "Another Year," by Mike Leigh, is a great screenplay.

What are your three best screenwriting tips? Whenever you have an "idea," as in a concept that you could explain to someone, like a hook or at worst a gimmick, that is a bad thing. It feels good, but it's not good. The best ideas reveal themselves, you don't "have" them. For me, anyway.

Let your characters talk to each other and do things. Spend time with them — they'll tell you who they are and what they're up to.

I have gotten into baseball recently, and whenever I have trouble writing, I think about the pace of baseball. It's slow. You strike out a lot, even if you're great. It's mostly individual, but when you have to work together, it must be perfect. My desktop picture is of the Red Sox during the World Series. They aren't winning; they're just grinding out another play. This, for me, is very helpful to have in my mind while writing.

ANDREW BUJALSKI

Notable writing credits: "Computer Chess" (2013); "Funny Ha Ha" (2002); "Hannah Takes the Stairs" (2007)

Illustrations by Melinda Josie


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

It’s the Economy: Why Mayors Can’t Combat Income Inequality

Illustration by Kelsey Dake

At the not-yet-completed One57, a luxury residential tower off Central Park, the unsold floor-through apartments are going for $53 million and up. The penthouse sold for more than $90 million. One57 will be the tallest residence in the Western Hemisphere (until another luxury high-rise on Park Avenue is completed in 2015), and on a clear day, residents on the top floors should be able to just make out the South Bronx.

Deep thoughts this week:

1. New York is more unequal than ever.

2. So is everywhere else.

3. There's nothing the mayor can do about it.

4. Except make it worse — which may not be a bad thing.

It's the Economy

A large proportion of the buyers likely won't live in New York; they will keep the units as decadent pieds-à-terre. I initially felt anger and disgust at the idea of absentee billionaires hoarding Manhattan real estate, making the city even more unaffordable while they live like princes in Moscow or Hong Kong or wherever. But then I did the math. Assuming that their money has to go somewhere, it's not so bad that these billionaires choose to put a chunk of it here. Any city official in Dayton or, for that matter, Philadelphia would do anything to have such problems. Yet frustration with becoming a central node in the global network of massive wealth was a centerpiece of New York's recent mayoral campaign.

Bill de Blasio didn't mention One57 by name in the speech that defined his candidacy, the one in which he described a tale of two cities — one obscenely rich, the other miserably poor — but you could argue that his campaign against inequality wouldn't have been so successful were it not for the proliferation of places like this. But what the tower's affluent quasi residents really make clear is that New York's inequality is hardly a local phenomenon. Most New Yorkers were born somewhere else. Nearly half speak a foreign language at home, and countless others come to the city from somewhere else in the United States. New York's inequality is determined by events taking place far beyond the Hudson River or, even, the Atlantic Ocean.

Benjamin Barber, the political theorist and author of "If Mayors Ruled the World," is wildly biased in favor of de Blasio. He says he voted for him, has met with him to offer advice and works at CUNY, an institution the mayor-elect promises to fund generously. For all that, Barber has not been swayed by de Blasio's soaring rhetoric about reducing the gap between rich and poor. "Obviously, he wouldn't want to disengage New York City from its role in global finance, real estate," he said. De Blasio knows that being mayor of the financial capital of the United States offers great benefits. After all, nearly every significant transaction in the United States — from an Iowa farmer's line of credit to a major bond issue in Maine — runs through some desk in Manhattan where somebody gets a cut. And the city gets a cut of that cut.

Barber points out that mayors, unlike legislators, are generally less dogmatic once they are sworn into office. "The distance between Bloomberg and de Blasio is not as great as the media — and the two men — have made out," he said. "Being a mayor is about solving problems and not about striking ideological poses."

Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard, is Barber's political opposite. His book, "The Triumph of the City," is an eloquent attack on many of the policies de Blasio argues for, like targeted protections for certain kinds of industries and expansion of government housing. But appropriately, for all their differences, Glaeser and Barber agree that ideology doesn't matter much when mayors actually govern. There are policies that could reduce inequality on the national level, like improving schools everywhere or altering the tax code, Glaeser points out, but the opposite is true on a local level; when local governments improve their schools or create more progressive taxes, they may increase inequality locally by attracting more poor people. Glaeser says one way to significantly lessen inequality in the city would be to aggressively repel either the very poor or the very rich. De Blasio, thankfully, will do neither.

Much has been made of de Blasio's call for higher taxes on the rich to finance better education for the poor. But his actual policy proposal is the tiniest possible tweak. People making more than half a million a year will pay an additional half a percent in New York City income tax. (For most, this will mean a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year.) His spokesman, Jonathan Rosen, explained that the increase was designed to help bring the children of poor New Yorkers into the middle class without encouraging wealthy people to leave the city because of the tax burden.

Whatever de Blasio does, Glaeser argues, the city will continue to attract both the superrich and the poor, and there will be less space occupied by the middle class. The gap between rich and poor has grown significantly over the past 35 years in nearly every nation, and especially in large cities. "Globalization and new technology have made cities more, not less, valuable," Glaeser said. This is because the most profitable businesses no longer involve heavy machinery; they are rooted in ideas, which, it turns out, spread most effectively when knowledge workers are densely packed together. The top handful of major metropolitan areas — New York, Chicago, Los Angeles — account for a hugely disproportionate share of overall U.S. economic growth, Glaeser says. There is every reason to believe this trend will continue and, most likely, increase. That will draw even more of the high-earning elite to big cities and many of the poor, too, seeking jobs and assistance in these centers of economic growth.

Barber and Glaeser agreed that however powerless de Blasio may be over these historic global trends, he does have one crucial power that he has already begun using: He can set a tone for the city as a place open to the poor and the middle class. His campaign to fight inequality could, paradoxically, make New York even more unequal. But if that inequality is a byproduct of New York's serving as a global symbol of opportunity, de Blasio's landslide victory suggests that most New Yorkers will be thrilled.

Adam Davidson is co-founder of NPR's "Planet Money," a podcast and blog.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

Talk: Motörhead’s Lemmy Kilmister: ‘I’m Paying for the Good Times’

Written By Unknown on Senin, 25 November 2013 | 18.38

I know you are having some health issues, and you just canceled Motörhead's European tour. How are you feeling?
I just feel really down. I'll never get a job again. I'm paying for the good times, I suppose. It's a mixture of all the things I ever did — and I did plenty.

Do you have to stop drinking?
I've already given up smoking. I drink wine and that's it.

Motörhead has been called the loudest heavy-metal band in history. You're 67 now. How is your hearing?
My hearing is usually O.K. I mean, I can hear you asking me about it.

Maxim reported that you slept with about 1,200 women. Is this still correct?
No, what I said was 1,000, and they said 2,000. I don't know why they said that. A thousand is enough. I was doing my best.

Did you stop at 1,000?
You don't stop at 1,000, do you?

I wouldn't know.
I wasn't counting. I mean, I just rounded it up over the years, you know. I've always been on the lookout.

Do you own a figurine of yourself?
I own three of them around here. They were given to me. I'll tell you what was funny about those — they made five different kinds, right, and there's a gold one, a silver one, two natural-color ones and a black one, all black. Shellac black. I just don't get that.

You once called your father a "nasty little weasel." Did you ever reconcile with him?
No, he died nine years back. We didn't run through the cornfields to each other in slow motion.

A lot of heavy-metal giants had very problematic relationships with their fathers. Why do you think that is?
You could say that about anyone, really, couldn't you? With heavy metal, I suppose it's because of the look. Parents don't like you looking like this and going out and disgracing the family.

Many people are hoping that you are inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. How important is that for you?
Well, I was not very impressed when I visited the place. I mean, they borrowed my Ace of Spades tour jacket and a pair of boots off me to have in a display, and I never got them back. They lost them.

Do you have any resentment toward them?
No, I don't have any resentment. I mean, it was just an employee, obviously. I wasn't very impressed with the biggest room in the place: the gift shop.

Have you ever met any other Lemmys?
I know a couple of Dogs and a couple of Parakeets.

You said that you appreciated the Beatles early on because of the sarcastic approach that they took to music.
And the harmonies.

Do you feel as if you take a sarcastic approach to rock?
If you don't, you're dead, you know, and if you believe that good things are going to happen, it's going to be severe for you later, because they aren't.

How do you think Motörhead would have fared over all these years if you had kept its original name, Bastard?
We would be right on the money when the punks came in, wouldn't we? We never actually went out as Bastard. You can't write to the lunatic fringe, you know.

I remember reading a story about you in Rolling Stone, and they found a bunch of Nazi stuff in your house. You don't have any sympathies that way, do you?
Of course not. I'm against any religion, and Communism and Nazism — they're both equally religions. They're just replacement gods.

You don't believe in God?
I believe I'll have a drink.

Lemmy is God, according to the movie "Airheads," right?
No, God is taller, and he dresses better. He lives in a Cape Cod cottage on the end of Rhode Island.

INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More

Who Said Girls Can’t Jump?

Postscript Appended


First there was the struggle to make women's ski jumping an Olympic sport. Now the American team just wants to win.

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

Lindsey Van in a training jump at the Utah Olympic Park in June.

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

Clockwise from left: Sarah Hendrickson, Abby Hughes, Lindsey Van, Jessica Jerome, and Alissa Johnson

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

Jessica Jerome and Alan Alborn, the head program and development coach, training in Park City.

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

Ski-jumping Olympic hopefuls, from left: Alissa Johnson, Jessica Jerome, Lindsey Van, Abby Hughes and Sarah Hendrickson.

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

Sarah Hendrickson in front of the K-90 and K-120 hills in June.

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times
Martin Schoeller for The New York Times
Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

Sarah Hendrickson during a training jump in June.

Martin Schoeller for The New York Times
Martin Schoeller for The New York Times

By MIREILLE SILCOFF
Photographs by MARTIN SCHOELLER
November 22, 2013

In her apartment in Park City, Utah, overlooking mountains already peaked with snow, Sarah Hendrickson tries not to obsessively replay the moment, two months earlier, that turned her life into a cliffhanger. At 19, Hendrickson is the current women's ski-jumping world champion and arguably the best female ski jumper ever. On Aug. 21, she set yet another hill record, at Oberstdorf, Germany, or would have, but for her crash landing.

As Hendrickson limped to get her phone so she could show me the video of the jump, she paused to look down at her loose pajama pants and baggy cardigan and apologized for her appearance. "At least I'm still wearing Nike," she said, sheepishly pointing to the T-shirt under her sweater. "They're still one of my sponsors, right?"

She carefully eased herself back onto the sofa and told me to press play on her phone. "I don't have to leave the room or anything, but I can't watch," she said. This was a training jump — she didn't need to take it — but the day was cold and clear with a light head wind, ideal for ski jumping. The new, state-of-the-art German jump was said to feel a lot like the one recently built for the Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and she had been jumping phenomenally well on it for days. On the screen, a tiny figure in a shiny blue suit soars under the sun, her skis in perfect V formation. "Sarah's too-incredible jump," as the team's head coach, Paolo Bernardi, calls it, was 148 meters, about the length of one and a half football fields. On the couch next to me, Hendrickson clutched her cardigan sleeves, yawning loudly to miss the horrible clatter of her 94-pound body landing at more than 70 miles an hour on the ground where the jump hill flattens, the area that means you've gone too far.

Hendrickson's surgeon calls her knee injury "the terrible triad, plus one": the A.C.L. ruptured completely, the M.C.L. pulled right off the tibia and severe damage was done to both the lateral and medial meniscus. It would take most athletes at least 12 months to recover from this kind of knee damage, but the Olympics in Sochi were less than six months away. Hendrickson said her doctor, who in August cut out part of her hamstring to repair part of her knee, told her not to give up hope.

"People are like, 'Well, you're so young, you'll have other Olympics,' " she said, adjusting a ponytail of dark curls on top of her head, her dark brows knit. "And it's like: 'No, you just don't understand. For women's ski jumping this is the year to compete.' " What she means is that this is the first Olympics in which women will be allowed to jump. It has been a decade-long fight to get women's ski jumping into the Olympics — it was one of the last restricted winter sports — and Hendrickson's outsize talent, a natural ability honed since age 7 that far surpasses that of most male jumpers, was like a banner to parade at the opening ceremony. You said we can't? Well, look at this.

Before the crash, Bernardi, a men's coach in his native Italy who joined the U.S. women's ski-jumping team in 2011, called Hendrickson "totally unbeatable." He first heard about Hendrickson when she was still a 60-pounder in the development clubs of Park City, and he is the figure most associated with her success. It's hard to find a Eurosport video of one of Hendrickson's winning jumps that doesn't include a cutaway of Bernardi dramatically sending kisses heavenward. But as much as it pains him, Bernardi has been forced to change the way he thinks about his team: "So maybe we lost the icebreaker — Sarah — the one that if we have a bad day, she can still put all the big lights on over our team. But my team, our team, the U.S. girls, this No. 1 team, was not the Sarah Hendrickson show."

But the truth is that it pretty much was, and a more difficult truth has emerged since her fall: the supporting players in the Sarah Hendrickson show may be thrust into the spotlight while she sits things out. Abby Hughes, 24, was the youngest on the team before the then-17-year-old Hendrickson broke into the champion ranks by winning nine of 13 World Cup competitions in 2012. Now, Hughes, tall and blond, is jostling hard against the team's other tall blond, Alissa Johnson, 26, to make the cut for Sochi, where only four of the team's jumpers can compete. Ranked above them is Jessica Jerome, 26, who ended last season as the ninth-best female ski jumper in the world. And then there is Lindsey Van, 28, the pioneer of the sport and the first official women's world champion, who was in a slump for the past two years but is now a strong contender for a medal at the Olympics. These five women are unusually close, having trained together year-round since they were kids. All of them grew up in Park City, learned to ski jump in the after-school programs there and still live and train on the hills of the Utah Olympic Park. So the whole team feels Hendrickson's accident in complicated ways — not least because her recovery would knock one of them out of the first Olympics for their sport.

"We still always have this feeling now, like someone is missing," Jerome said of Sarah. "We all had our hearts broken when Sarah fell, but to be honest, less and less."

Johnson elaborated, describing how she saw some athletes getting caught up in pre-Olympic pressure. "You can make anything a positive thing or a negative thing," she said. "And what I've been thinking lately is, If you stick to your program, other people will trip up. At this point it's a game of who's following themselves, and who's not overdoing it and falling into traps. . . . You know this team has not had an easy time getting to the Olympics. So now it's just, like, stick to the plan."

For her part, Hendrickson's plan is "not giving up 12 years of hard training to sit at home and watch the Olympics on television." She now spends up to eight hours at a time at the gym, in rehab training, and every day she sets aside a few minutes to visualize her goal. "I see myself at the top of the ski jump in Sochi," she says. "I see myself walking into the opening ceremony." If she does make the team of four Olympic athletes in January, she has, she told me, already "grieved for" the athlete who will be ousted because of her last-minute reinclusion. "Of course that's not how I want to qualify. It will be just horrible. But it's sport, that's how it works. Still, for the other girls? I dread that day."

Ski jumping is a Nordic sport, meaning, like cross-country and telemark skiing, one that evolved on the snow fields and gentle hills of Norway. It is a traditional discipline, highly controlled, obsessed with the most minute details like thumb angle and millimeters between skin and suit. It is not something for expressive hot-doggers. In the United States, where most homegrown ski sports — snowboarding, for example — have both the Alps and a surfboard somewhere in their genes, the Nordic disciplines are not much considered spectator sports. They are also almost irretrievably associated with a quaint, gingerbreadish tweeness. So while it wouldn't be wrong to call ski jumping an extreme sport — because it is crazy to go down a 400-foot-high iced track at 60 miles an hour and then jump the length of a New York City block with nothing but a helmet as a safety net — it's still not something you'll most likely see in the X Games.

And yet, the place that bred the top-ranked women's ski-jumping team is far from Norway. There were an unusual constellation of factors that made the conditions in Park City, Utah, nearly perfect for the development of women's jumping: the jumps built for the 2002 Olympics are not only the best in the country but among the best in the world, and the Olympic Games themselves energized all the winter sports programs in Park City before and after their arrival. The ski culture is also open-minded, which allowed Lindsey Van to start jumping — the lone girl alongside the boys — in the 1990s. There is a 1993 video of her, 8 years old, at the training jumps in the area that would later become the Utah Olympic Park. She is wearing a helmet and a black-and-white cow-patterned suit, and her teeth look big in that way that 8-year-old teeth do. "My goal," she says, coming off a jump, "is to make the Olympic team in 2002 — for girls."

Van, the daughter of a Detroit merchant seaman who moved his young family to Park City after being laid off, became a local celebrity. Soon there were other Park City girls taking ski jumping seriously: Jerome first, then Johnson, then Hughes. Van would sometimes coach young girls, like Hendrickson, who were just starting out on the smallest training hills. The rest of her time was spent on the rinky-dink competition circuit then available to women, which inevitably took place on some of the world's more substandard jumps, the ones that Van affectionately describes as "on the dark side of the moon" — rutted, uneven venues in places with names like Rastbuchl, Pohla and Notodden, where spectators might be a handful of local townspeople and a jump hill's landing area might end in roads with passing cars.

The team often arrived at foreign airports with $100 among them, no one to pick them up and the number of a Swedish ski jumper's mother as the only backup plan. "We would stay in all these hostels where 30 girls slept in a room," Johnson says. "We always shared equipment because somebody's always got lost." Van told me how once, in Saalfelden, Austria, the team arrived at their "guesthouse" and found that it was a loft over a teeming cowshed. "There was a lot less organization, a lot less money, a lot more being young and dumb," she said. "But we were a family — all girl ski jumpers were a family back then."

Van didn't make her childhood goal of jumping in the 2002 Olympics, of course, because female jumpers weren't allowed to compete. Nor in 2006. By the time the 2010 games were coming around, 15 of the sport's best jumpers filed a discrimination suit against the Vancouver Organizing Committee, led by Women's Ski Jumping USA, a nonprofit group started in 2003 to support the team. Against the wishes of the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association (U.S.S.A.), the national governing body of Olympic skiing, Van — who had just won the sport's first World Championships — agreed to be the spokeswoman.

"Suddenly I didn't even have time to train," Van told me. "I find myself in Canada answering questions about Canadian law and the laws of the International Olympic Committee. And you know what? It's not like you wake up one day and say, 'I want to be an activist for women in ski jumping.' But it came to where it was like: 'Well, if you want this for yourself, or for anyone in the future, you have to do it. The next generation is going to come out of this, and right now it's you or it's no one.' "

The ski jumpers lost in appeals court in November 2009, with the court ruling that neither the Vancouver Organizing Committee nor any Canadian authority could tell the Switzerland-based International Olympic Committee what to do. Standing outside the courthouse, Van wept openly, saying, "I thought that they would go the other way." She then called the Canadian system of justice "weak," likened the I.O.C. to the Taliban and discouraged young girls from aspiring to be the next Lindsey Van "because there is no future." She lost her most lucrative sponsor, and in 2010, quit ski jumping while still ranked No. 1 in the world.

But a year later, around the time of the Olympic announcement that women would get to compete in a single category in 2014 — individual jump on the K-95, the smaller of the two Sochi jump hills — she returned. By then, the years of emotional stress and missed training because of what the jumpers now simply call "the fight" had compromised her jumping. Beyond that, Olympic inclusion had a nearly instantaneous effect on professionalizing women's ski jumping: suddenly there were smartly uniformed female teams, rigorously trained and traveling with entourages of physiotherapists and coaches. Van was now skiing alongside not only Hendrickson, but also a new generation of teenage jumpers like Sara Takanashi of Japan and Coline Mattel of France. China retrained gymnasts and sent them down ski jumps after the Olympics were announced.

One day in Park City this summer, I watched Van and Hendrickson jump from a low stool into the upstretched arms of a coach, Alan Alborn, at the Center of Excellence, the training and education facility of the U.S.S.A. Even on the level of pure movement, I felt I could see the weariness in Van's effort, while Hendrickson arced into Alborn's arms so fluidly it seemed as if she could do it all day. Bernardi had already told me that the problem with Van was the problem of experience: too much old memory padding those muscles, too many past injuries. One morning, he said, you wake up in a new world, still doing things the old way. When I asked him what the issues were with Hendrickson, he said, "The only issue with an athlete like Sarah is that she doesn't peak before she has to. . . . Sometimes, you have to hold them back."

The resistance to women in ski jumping makes frustratingly little sense when you recognize what female jumpers can do. "The gap between men and women in ski jumping is so small, you can't believe it," Bernardi told me. "Every year, with girls like Sarah, the girls are flying better, better, better." Today, he said, there might not actually be another sport in which, at the superelite level, the differences in male and female capability are so minimal. "Maybe there is something with horses? Equestre? But even there it is half the horse."

Van said she believed that this is also the reason women have been excluded from the top competitions in the sport for so long. "If women can jump as far as men, what does that do to the extreme value of this sport?" she asks. "I think we scared the ski-jumping [establishment]."

There is so little difference between women and men in the sport because lightness and technique count just as much as muscle and power. A jump can be separated into four sections: the in run, where balance is crucial as the athlete pushes off a start bar and goes down a track; the jump, where within a tenth of a second the athlete transitions from rushing down the track to a hard-push takeoff; the flight, where skis are kept in V-formation, and the ideal model for the body is a kite, paper thin, but with enough surface to catch good air; and finally, the landing, which is often done in telemark style, meaning one ski in front of the other. A ski jump is measured by judges for both distance and style. Women are allowed to start from a higher point on the jump because of their lighter weight (for heavier women, this can be an advantage).

At the final event of the Federation Internationale de Ski World Cup at the Holmenkollen ski arena in Norway, where I started following the women's team in March, the men and women were essentially jumping the same distances. It was the first time the federation allowed female jumpers to take the big hill, the K-120, and the women performed well. The longest male jump was 139 meters, from the Norwegian Tom Hilde, Hendrickson's boyfriend, while the longest female jump — 134 meters — belonged to her closest challenger, the 17-year-old Takanashi. Hendrickson, who jumped 133.5, still took first place for her flawless style.

As I watched the skiers fly through the air at Holmenkollen, I often found myself squinting for some telltale sign of whether they were male or female: a ponytail, say, or the curve of a breast. Jumpers are often indecipherable in the air largely because of the sport's physical ideal, which is skinny, sometimes to the point of emaciation. Male jumpers, Van said, "are the most awful, unhealthy looking humans." From afar, many of them look like willowy women, often weighing less than 135 pounds, with sunken cheeks, jutting hip bones and sticklike legs.

Increasingly, women are prioritizing lightness as well. Van has an unusually dense, stocky build for the sport, and Hughes and Johnson have swimmer's shoulders, but as the reedlike Hendrickson explained to me, it's only a matter of time before extreme skinniness becomes the norm on the women's side as well. "For so long things were not that serious for girls," she said. "But now that things are getting more competitive, with the Olympics and everything, you will start to see one body type — the ski-jumping body type."

One thing the jumpers hope they'll see more of with the Olympics approaching is money. At least in this country, a niche sport like ski jumping has little chance to secure much outside interest from sponsors without the platform of the Olympic Games (or the youth-culture currency of the X Games). With the exception of Hendrickson — who is individually sponsored by Red Bull, Nike and Kellogg's, among others — every woman on the team has flirted with the poverty line. A few do have sponsors — Van gets some money from two small companies, and Jerome recently landed Liberty Mutual — but generally, if they can scrape together $10,000 a year outside of skiing, they feel like they are doing well. Johnson and Jerome wait on tables, Hughes is a nanny, and this year Van tried to raise money through a Salt Lake City-based crowdfunding website called RallyMe, which feels like entry into an underground world of impoverished athletes with Olympic aspirations: the bobsledders, the skeleton riders, the kayakers.

The team itself is not much better off. "We're still always a step away from bake sales in terms of keeping these girls in jumpsuits," says Whitney Childers, the communications manager for Women's Ski Jumping USA. "Even going into the Olympics, it's like that." Today, between travel, training, coaching and physical therapy, W.S.J.-USA spends an average of $80,000 to maintain a female athlete on the international circuit for a year. Japan's and Austria's female teams can spend nearly twice that on their best jumpers. The U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association — which is famously more generous with Alpine skiing than Nordic — gives a meager $50,000 to $60,000 total in support. (The U.S.S.A. gives no money at all to the U.S. men's ski-jumping team, which is ranked 13.) The women's team has a handful of sponsors, with a chocolate-milk campaign and Visa donating the most significant sums — the team's official name is the Visa Women's Ski Jumping Team — but, even going into the Olympics, the total corporate sponsorship is still only $251,000 a year. Without a good deal of creative fund-raising within the Utah community, the numbers would never add up. "So we get the girls out in dresses for fund-raisers," Childers said.

One day, after Hendrickson's three-hour morning workout, two months before her crash, we went to lunch at one of her favorite restaurants, a budget Thai place in a strip mall. Hendrickson, whose mother was an ultramarathoner and whose father was a recreational ski jumper in his youth, left the Center for Excellence dressed all in Nike — Nike shorts, a Nike tank top, a Nike zip-up jacket and Nike sneakers. She said she was relieved that for the next few weeks she could just train. Since returning from Norway, she had barely spent any time at home. She took a deep breath and recited some of her recent schedule, which began with a trip to the Canary Islands to see Hilde, her boyfriend, and included a media tour for Red Bull, an Olympic press event in Hollywood and a promotional trip for a nonprofit organization that finances children's sports programs in Africa.

"It's a lot to do," she said, breezily, "but I'm regulating everything and making sure I'm keeping everything at ease and not letting all this stuff distract me." Like many athletes, Hendrickson seems to thrive on routine. While talking about how she went about her days in Park City, she included the most minute details, from shower times to breakfast rituals ("I put my frozen berries in the microwave for 20, no, actually 15 seconds"). In ski jumping, where an untucked shoelace or the tiniest change in hip angle can make a difference, the sport's ideal personality type, she said, "might be control freak."

Hendrickson separated a small portion of her tofu curry from the rest and cut it into pea-size pieces. It was hard to tell whether she was dividing her lunch to encourage herself to eat more or less. "I don't like the feeling of being full," she said. "I hate it." She ate the cut-up pieces, then asked to take her soup, rice and remaining tofu home in a doggie bag. She looked at my nearly cleaned plate and asked whether I wanted a doggie bag too, as if the few morsels left could possibly make for a meal.

Earlier in the season, I watched her lose her usual composure in a hotel lobby when she realized that Bernardi hadn't told her she could eat dinner early. "You said 8, but I heard some teams got to eat at 6!" she said, stamping a bunny-slippered foot. "You know I hate eating late! You know I never eat late!"

Since 2004, Federation Internationale de Ski has implemented rules to address concerns about eating disorders among ski jumpers. The length of skis an athlete is allowed to use now depends not only on his height but his weight as well. If a jumper falls under a certain weight for his height, he loses centimeters off his skis. Ski length makes up part of a jumper's power in the air — playing a part in everything from lift to control, especially on windy days. At the restaurant, Hendrickson explained that she lost too much weight in the past few months. She had to cut her skis — in June, they measured 214 centimeters (about 84 inches), when, at 5-foot-4, she could be skiing on 232s.

"I want to be back on 220s by the Olympics," she said. She was particularly worried about jumping in the wind on shorter skis. "I don't like jumping in the wind. I'll tell my coach straight up: It makes things too inconsistent. Go from too high a gate, you can go too far, hurt your knees. That's actually my biggest fear."

Hendrickson's coaches had been concerned enough about her strength to ask her to build "a little more body mass." She was encouraged to begin eating snacks before bed, and they also wanted her to drink protein shakes. But Bernardi, who told me that he nearly ended his own competitive career as a Nordic combined athlete in Italy because he became too thin and weak after being encouraged to lose weight, said he and the other coaches are not worried about Hendrickson. "When we get worried, we do something."

The morning after the Thai meal, Hendrickson and I drove to Utah Olympic Park together. It was the first day of summer jumping and warm for June, but Hendrickson, wearing sweatpants and a polar fleece, had the heat on in her car. When we arrived, Van, Jerome, Johnson and Hughes, dressed in jogging shorts and tank tops, were joking around and limbering up with a small exercise ball. Hendrickson walked off wordlessly.

Throughout this first week back in training in Park City, her teammates suggested that Hendrickson's rise was causing tension among them. "Sarah's different than before," Hughes said. "It's just, as a team, everybody adds their own element and her element is a little hard to be around." Jerome and Johnson added that they felt the pressure and attention were getting to Hendrickson.

"Sarah is a really good kid," Johnson had said to me, "but she's in a situation where a lot of people will accept really mediocre or somewhat bad behavior — like allowing her to be short with them. And then we have to go through all this stuff on the team, like, 'Is Sarah happy today, or is she going to start screaming?' "

"Let's just put it this way, I know I get cranky when I am under a certain weight," Jerome said. "And with Sarah, people are just walking on eggshells."

The Olympic Park ski jumps looked like two AstroTurf tongues extended down the mountain. Without the coating of snow — in the summer, the surfaces are watered porcelain and stiff plastic matting — the perilous nature of the sport was laid bare. At the top of the K-120, it was all clanking metal start bars and wind howling through the metal platforms. The jumping, which looked so graceful, peaceful even, from the ground, now just looked extreme, all edge and danger. "Everybody has fear every time they jump," Hendrickson told me the day before. "You are going against what your brain wants to do — your brain will tell your body to do anything but what you are supposed to do to jump well."

Jerome, who had peeled her suit down to the tops of her ski boots, was sitting on the steps near the start bar in her underwear, waiting for her turn to jump. The thick suits are hotter and clingier than ever, because in the past year the Federation Internationale de Ski clamped down on what some jumpers call "suit doping," or cheating with your suit (some common tactics include super-low crotches or webbed underarms that give the jumper extra surface area). A jumper lands with more speed in a tight suit, because it doesn't catch air or provide any kind of parachute. And when things go wrong, Van said, "it can be like jumping out of a 30-story window going 60 miles an hour and trying to land. And it doesn't matter how strong you are. There's just no comfortable way to do that."

I met Van in her basement apartment near the Utah Olympic Park. It's a small place in a down-at-the-heels condo complex that she shares with her twin brother and another roommate. The apartment is sparsely furnished with ramshackle hand-me downs. There is a single picture of a cow on the wall and a thin coat of cat hair on the sofa. "I live simple," she said. "I don't need much."

Standing close to her, I found it hard not to stare at her muscled body, which radiates such dense power that your instinct is to step back. She has been repeatedly and seriously injured over the years — her ankles, her knees, six broken vertebrae, a ruptured spleen. As a teenager, Van developed an eating disorder, but in her 20s, she decided it was better to try to figure out how to "make [her] fat fly." "Fat" should be taken euphemistically; there was not a speck in evidence. "I've been asked to become an Olympic weight lifter many times," she said. "But you're picking up this big piece of heavy metal just to put it back exactly where you picked it up from. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me."

Despite her disappointment with the way she was jumping (she finished the 2012-2013 season eighth over all), she had tried to make light of it. "Whatever," she said. "Ski jumping isn't the cure for cancer. It isn't even cancer." She'd long been trying to shrug off the idea that her best jumping years might have been spent in court rather than at the Olympics.

"So it's the first Olympics, and it's not my peak," she told me back in Norway. "But it's still someone's peak; it's the same process, just continuing, so how can I be bummed?"

Then, a month after we met, Van had a breakthrough. An entrepreneur in Ogden, Utah, had created a wind tunnel, a long room with three 6-foot-diameter fans, each with 150 horsepower, for use in assessing the aerodynamics of things like racecars and motorcycles. First Hendrickson was invited to try it, and then, a few weeks later, the rest of the team got its chance.

One by one, the jumpers attached their feet to ski bindings bolted into the floor, and then pitched themselves forward against the 60 m.p.h. gale produced by the fans. Smoke passed over their torsos in order to show how the wind split and dragged when it hit them. Alborn sometimes lay on his back directly under a jumper, giving directions. For Van, it was a transformative experience. "The wind tunnel gives you the same feeling that you have when you're in flight, but here it was several minutes at a time," she said. "Which gives your brain a chance to recognize the feelings instead of just feeling them. I felt things I may have only felt 20 times in my whole life as a ski jumper. It was like I was a kid again."

Not long after that, it was clear that Van was coming out of her slump. For two years, Bernardi had been trying, unsuccessfully, to get her to jump in a position that worked better with the new, tighter suits and the new, faster jumps. Now everything was finally clicking. In October, she won the U.S. National Championships. It was her 16th national title.

"I was waiting for two years for this kind of turnaround," she said. "Nobody wants to do a sport for 22 years and feel like they suck. If you're doing something that long, you should be good at it, right? It got to the point where I felt like I couldn't even call myself a ski jumper. But now, jumping, I have the feelings I haven't felt in a long time. I feel happy. I remember: jumping makes me happy."

The question is whether the wind tunnel also blew Sarah Hendrickson into some stratosphere of ski jumping that her body just couldn't handle. "Paolo hadn't expected me to jump as well as I was in Oberstdorf for four more months," she said. "After my first jumps there, he was like, 'I don't know how, but you're just destroying it.' My mom still asks if it was the wind tunnel. But you know, whatever. What if it was what I had for breakfast that morning?"

Hendrickson, who believes the accident was "just bad circumstance," says she knows Bernardi has at times blamed himself. What if, on that supersleek Oberstdorf jump, he hadn't let her wear her fastest suit, the blue one she usually saves for competition days? What if he had instructed her to start from a lower gate? Bernardi told me he doesn't think it was anyone's fault. "It was because of the danger that is inside this sport," he said. "It was a perfect jump on a perfect day. It was a perfect landing, only too much speed. She did what every athlete of her level loves to do — she went so far. She was the best Sarah Hendrickson ever. She was too good."

It was when she saw herself coasting high over the hill's 120-meter line that Hendrickson knew she was in trouble. By the time she threw her arms out to try to slow down, it was too late. When she fell, anyone within earshot could hear her crying, "I want Paolo, I want Paolo!" The first person to reach her on the ground was a Dutch athlete who was training on the small hill. He untwisted her leg, which was still stuck to her ski. By the time Bernardi got down from the coaches' platform, Hendrickson had stopped pleading for him and was saying, "I'm fine, I'm fine — I don't need to go to the hospital." On the backboard in the ambulance, she clapped her hands over her ears and squeezed her eyes shut. "I didn't want to hear anything anybody was saying," she recalled. When, less than an hour later, a German doctor hinted at how bad the damage was, she began to sob. She says she cried for nearly all of the four days it took to get back to Park City.

Within a week, her knee was operated on by Dr. Andrew Cooper at Salt Lake Medical Center, and she began the slow process of recovery. The day after Labor Day, she was at the Center of Excellence, howling in pain as physiotherapists began the two-week course of getting her to straighten her leg. By then her weight had dropped to 89 pounds. A team had been corralled to address Hendrickson's rehab, including Cooper, Bernardi and Alborn, the U.S.S.A. strength coach, two physiotherapists, the U.S. Ski Team's media director and the nutritionist and the cook at the Center for Excellence.

Hendrickson's biggest obstacle now, she said, is strength. "I really need to work on eating enough, even if, because I am not as active, my mind is kind of like, 'Well, you don't need food,' or, 'I'm not hungry.' So that's one of my battles — I just have to eat."

For the first six weeks, a physiotherapist brought Hendrickson a smoothie every day at 3 p.m. "And I don't know what gets put in these smoothies," she said, laughing. "Because if I made them, they'd probably have half the calories."

Hendrickson told me that her mother suggested that the injury might be a strange sort of blessing, absolving her from the pre-Olympic media storm and allowing her to focus on her physical and mental health. She sheepishly described a new guilty pleasure: going to the coffee shop near her house to read Harry Potter books. Hendrickson did attend a media summit in October in her brace, where she was stunned by the widespread assumption that she was out for the season. "I am like: 'Are you kidding me? I blew out my knee five weeks ago! I would not be here right now if I was giving up.' " (Jerome described it as a demanding day for Hendrickson. "She was being wheeled around in a wheelchair, and the main reason all these people are talking to her is because if she does make the Olympics, they want that really great back story. It must have put a lot more stress on her.")

As Hendrickson made tea, she told me that Van has been there through her rehabilitation — visiting, texting, helping with her physiotherapy. "She was the first person to reach out and come over after my surgery," Hendrickson said. "I was screaming in pain. Every time I'd get pain, I would tense up my foot, and I would get cramps. And she was like, 'Sarah, relax your foot.' And she was massaging it for me."

Van believes Hendrickson's injury will ultimately make her a better jumper. "Sarah was an athlete who was up here all the time," she said, raising her hand over her head. "But the farther you go down, the harder it is, then the more you learn about what you can take and why you're doing the sport. You are alone, and nothing is fun, but when you get out of it, you see it was worth it."

Hendrickson has begun practicing in-run positioning again, her feet flat on the floor, her torso flush against the tops of her thighs. Her rehab team is engaging in some techniques that her surgeon calls "possible voodoo — but you never know," including an esoteric Japanese technique of employing tight tourniquets to direct blood flow. Bernardi has set her red line around mid-January. If she can jump well by then — and the U.S. Olympic Committee and the U.S. Ski Team agrees to Bernardi and Alborn using their discretion, rather than qualifying points, to select the team — she will make it to the Olympics. Meanwhile, two others, Nina Lussi and Nita Englund, are now touring the circuit in hopes of qualifying.

Hendrickson said she tried to tell herself that her injury happened for a reason, "and that maybe the reason is to give somebody else a chance." Her phone buzzed. It was a text from Lindsey Van.

Postscript: November 22, 2013

Coach Paolo Bernardi quit the United States women's ski jumping team on Thursday after this article went to press. "I resign for personal reasons, and it was a hard decision," Bernardi wrote on his Facebook page, in a post that has since been deleted. "... I hope to find another team soon that can give me the motivation to start again." In an email to The Times, Bernardi said the reason for his quitting was "deeper" than only Sarah Hendrickson's setback, but "of course has a lot to do with Sarah." Erik Renmaelmo, who most recently was the assistant coach of the Norwegian women's ski-jumping team, has succeeded Bernardi.


18.38 | 0 komentar | Read More
techieblogger.com Techie Blogger Techie Blogger