I Was Misinformed: The Time She Tried Viagra

I have noticed, in the bragging-rights department, that “he doesn’t need Viagra” has become the female equivalent of the male “and, I swear, she’s a real blonde.” Personally, I do not care a bit. To me, anything that keeps you happy and in the game is a good thing.

But then, I am proud to say, I was among the early, and from what I gather, rare female users.

It happened when the drug was introduced around 1998. I was 50, but after chemotherapy for breast cancer — and later, advanced ovarian cancer — I was, hormonally speaking, pretty much running on fumes. Whether this had diminished my sex drive I did not yet know. One may have Zorba-esque impulses when a cancer diagnosis first comes in; but a treatment that leaves you bald, moon-faced and exhausted knocks that out of your system pretty fast.

But by 1998, the cancer was gone, my hair was back and I was ready to get back in the game. I was talking to an endocrinologist when I brought up Viagra. This was not to deal with the age-related physical changes I knew it would not address, it was more along the feminist lines of equal pay for equal work: if men have this new sex drug, I want this new sex drug.

“I know it’s supposed to work by increasing blood flow,” I told the doctor, “But if that’s true for men, shouldn’t it be true for women, too?”

“You’re the third woman who asked me that this week,” he said.

He wrote me a prescription. I was not seeing anyone, so I understood that I would have to do both parts myself, but that was fine. I have a low drug threshold and figured it might be best the first time to fly solo. My memory of the directions are hazy: I think there was a warning that one might have a facial flush or headaches or drop dead of a heart attack; that you were to take a pill at least an hour before you planned to get lucky, and, as zero hour approached, you were supposed to help things along by thinking beautiful thoughts, kind of like Peter Pan teaching Wendy and the boys how to fly.

But you know how it is: It’s hard to think beautiful thoughts when you’re wondering, “Is it happening? Do I feel anything? Woof, woof? Hello, sailor? Naaah.”

After about an hour, however, I was aware of a dramatic change. I had developed a red flush on my face; I was a hot tomato, though not the kind I had planned. I had also developed a horrible headache. The sex pill had turned into a bad joke: Not now, honey, I have a headache.

I put a cold cloth on my head and went to sleep. But here’s where it got good: When I slept, I dreamed; one of those extraordinary, sensual, swimming in silk sort of things. I woke up dazed and glowing with just one thought: I gotta get this baby out on the highway and see what it can do.

A few months later I am fixed up with a guy, and after a time he is, under the Seinfeldian definition of human relations (Saturday night date assumed) my official boyfriend. He is middle aged, in good health. How to describe our romantic life with the delicacy a family publication requires? Perhaps a line from “Veronika, der Lenz ist da” (“Veronica, Spring Is Here”), a song popularized by the German group the Comedian Harmonists: “Veronika, der Spargel Wächst” (“Veronica, the asparagus are blooming”). On the other hand, sometimes not. And so, one day, I put it out there in the manner of sport:

“Want to drop some Viagra?” I say.

Here we go again, falling into what I am beginning to think is an inevitable pattern: lying there like a lox, or two loxes, waiting for the train to pull into the station. (Yes, I know it’s a mixed metaphor, but at least I didn’t bring in the asparagus.) So there we are, waiting. And then, suddenly, spring comes to Suffolk County. It’s such a presence. I’m wondering if I should ask it if it hit traffic on the L.I.E. We sit there staring.

My reaction is less impressive. I don’t get a headache this time. And romantically, things are more so, but not so much that I feel compelled to try the little blue pills again.

Onward roll the years. I have a new man in my life, who is 63. He does have health problems, for which his doctor prescribes an E.D. drug. I no longer have any interest in them. My curiosity has been satisfied. Plus I am deeply in love, an aphrodisiac yet to be encapsulated in pharmaceuticals.

We take a vacation in mountain Mexico. We pop into a drugstore to pick up sunscreen and spot the whole gang, Cialis, Viagra, Levitra, on a shelf at the checkout counter. No prescription needed in Mexico, the clerk says. We buy all three drugs and return to the hotel. I try some, he tries some. In retrospect, given the altitude and his health, we are lucky we did not kill him. I came across an old photo the other day. He is on the bed, the drugs in their boxes lined up a in a semi-circle around him. He looks a bit dazed and his nose is red.

Looking at the picture, I wonder if he had a cold.

Then I remember: the flush, the damn flush. If I had kids, I suppose I would have to lie about it.

Read More..

Letter Raises Questions About When BBC Ex-Chief Learned of Abuse Cases

A legal letter sent on behalf of Mark Thompson, the former director general of the BBC, raises questions about his assertions that he learned of accusations of sexual abuse against its longtime host Jimmy Savile only after leaving the corporation’s top job.

In the letter, sent 10 days before Mr. Thompson left the BBC in September, lawyers representing him and another executive threatened to sue The Sunday Times in London over contentions in an article it was preparing that they had been involved in killing a BBC investigation of Mr. Savile.

Interviews show that the letter included a summary of the alleged abuse, including the allegation that some abuse might have occurred at the BBC.

According to people who have reviewed the private letter, it recounted that the proposed article in The Sunday Times magazine would “look at a number of allegations regarding the behavior of the late television and radio presenter, specifically that he took advantage of a series of young women. Some of the alleged assaults took place on BBC premises.”

An aide to the former BBC chief said that although Mr. Thompson had orally authorized the sending of the letter, he had not known the details of its contents. “It’s not clear if he was shown it, but he doesn’t remember reading it,” said the aide, a personal adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to give Mr. Thompson’s version of events. Mr. Thompson declined to comment.

The timing and substance of the letter are significant because Mr. Thompson, who began work this week as president and chief executive of The New York Times Company, said in October that “during my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile.”

There were other moments during Mr. Thompson’s final months at the BBC — involving brief conversations and articles appearing in London news media — when he might have picked up on the gravity of the Savile case. But the letter is different because it shows Mr. Thompson was involved in an aggressive action to challenge an article about the case that was likely to reflect poorly on the BBC and on him.

It came at a pivotal moment for Mr. Thompson. His appointment to The New York Times Company job was announced on Aug. 14, and the Sunday Times article was likely to appear in late September or early October, just as he was making the transition from London to New York.

The scandal exploded early last month when a rival television network broadcast a documentary on the sexual abuse accusations against Mr. Savile, the host of children’s and pop music shows, who retired in the mid-1990s and died in October 2011. The revelation has led to a police investigation of hundreds of accusations of abuse, mostly from the 1970s, and it has also shaken the BBC, where lower-level editors killed the investigation by its “Newsnight” program in December 2011.

The existence of the letter from lawyers for the BBC was first reported last weekend by The Sunday Times. But only after its wording was described in interviews this week did it become clear the degree to which Mr. Thompson, in his final days at the BBC, had information at his fingertips about Mr. Savile’s alleged abuse and the scuttled “Newsnight” investigation.

The letter appears to have been the last in a string of opportunities for Mr. Thompson, while director general, to have gotten a fuller picture of Mr. Savile and the “Newsnight” program.

Mr. Thompson said he was not aware of the “Newsnight” program before it was killed in early December, and no evidence has emerged to challenge that. He acknowledges that a BBC reporter mentioned it to him a couple of weeks later at a company reception. His interest piqued, he said, he raised the subject with news executives and was told that “Newsnight” had halted the investigation for journalistic reasons and that there was nothing for him to be concerned with. He said he was not told and did not ask about the substance of the inquiry.

In January and February, seven articles appeared in the London press reporting on the killed “Newsnight” program and the accusations against Mr. Savile. In August, as the rival television station was preparing its Savile exposé, more articles appeared previewing the documentary and again detailing the accusations. Although at least some of the articles were part of daily clippings of news articles sent to BBC executives, Mr. Thompson said he did not remember reading them.

Read More..

Jill Kelley, key figure in David Petraeus scandal, led lavish life

TAMPA, Fla. — When Jill Kelley believed a reporter was trespassing at her white-columned mansion in a wealthy neighborhood this week, the Tampa socialite called 911 and claimed diplomatic immunity.

"I'm an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability," an exasperated Kelley told the dispatcher in recordings released by police. "I don't know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well."

Kelley isn't a diplomat; she holds the ceremonial title of "honorary consul" for South Korea, one of many informal ties to prestige and power that the energetic 37-year-old mother of three has brandished to climb to the top rungs of the social ladder in this conservative military community.

Kelley, the wife of a cancer surgeon, has a thin resume, a troubled family, shaky finances and a reputation for being, as one acquaintance here put it, "Tampa Kardashian." Now she is central to an unfolding scandal that has forced out David H. Petraeus as CIA director, threatens the career of Marine Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, and cast previously unknown figures and a sex affair into international notoriety.

Kelley's complaint to the FBI last summer that she was being harassed by email triggered the investigation that uncovered Petraeus' extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, author of those emails. The inquiry also uncovered what the Pentagon has called 20,000 to 30,000 pages of possibly "inappropriate communication" between Kelley and Allen, whose nomination to a prestigious assignment overseeing all NATO military has been put on hold.

Allen "intends to fully cooperate with the inspector general investigators and directed his staff to do the same," his lawyer, Col. John Baker, the chief defense counsel of the Marine Corps, said in a statement Wednesday. "To the extent there are questions about certain communications by Gen. Allen, he shares in the desire to resolve those questions as completely and quickly as possible."

The Army suspended Broadwell's security clearance, which gave her access to classified information. She is a lieutenant colonel and intelligence officer in the Army Reserve.

President Obama said at a White House news conference that he had seen "no evidence at this point" that classified information had been compromised, but noted that the FBI investigation was continuing. He praised Petraeus, who resigned Friday, for his "extraordinary career" in the military and CIA. "We are safer because of the work Dave Petraeus has done," he said.

From 2008 to 2010, Petraeus headed Central Command, which runs U.S. military operations in the Middle East, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The command is based at MacDill Air Force Base, on a spit of land that juts into Tampa Bay. The base also is home to U.S. Special Operations Command and hosts representatives from 60 nations that joined together to fight terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001.

Balmy weather, a sparkling bay and a military-friendly population have made Tampa a welcome posting for officers and a favorite spot for retirees like Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The late New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner had a booth at the Palm steakhouse, where his caricature adorns the wall — along with those of two other regulars, Scott and Jill Kelley.

Life here was a step up for Jill Kelley. Born in Beirut, she moved in the mid-1970s with her family to northeast Philadelphia, where they were the "oddballs" in a mostly Irish and German neighborhood, said Kelley's brother, David Khawam. The family opened restaurants in the area, he told reporters.

Scott and Jill Kelley moved to Tampa about a decade ago when Scott, who specializes in surgery for esophageal cancer, was hired by a local hospital. In June 2004, they purchased a 5,500-square-foot red-brick home on Bayshore Boulevard in the city's ritziest neighborhood.

With her dark tresses, high-wattage smile and gregarious personality, Kelley was a natural hostess. She became known for holding Champagne-and-caviar parties on a manicured front lawn, complete with billowing white tents and valet parking. Civic leaders rubbed shoulders with military brass from MacDill, a base so crucial to the local economy that generals were treated like rock stars.

In some cases, they acted that way too.

In February 2010, Petraeus and his wife, Holly, attended their first Gasparilla Pirate Festival, a local version of Mardi Gras. He arrived at the Kelley home with a 28-motorcycle police escort and wore a long string of beads around his neck.

"They became close friends with the general," said former Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, who was a guest at multiple Kelley bashes. "The parties were purely social. It was a way, particularly with the coalition members, to just be a gracious hostess, to say, 'We're glad you're in Tampa.' There's nothing more to it than that."

Allen and Petraeus stayed in close touch with Kelley after they left Tampa. Although it might seem odd for a general running a war to stay in touch with a hostess back home, it's not unusual in the military world, where officers and their families frequently move and need to promote good relations with community leaders.

"She was part of that social connective tissue for generals and flag officers," said one officer.

Two years ago, Kelley strapped herself into a harness and made a tandem parachute jump with Special Operations troops, another official said. She was named an "honorary ambassador" by allied countries at Central Command and even secured a pass that allowed her to enter MacDill during daylight hours without an escort. That pass was revoked this week.

Even before the scandal broke, she had begun to wear out her welcome, flooding senior officers' inboxes with emails and requests for help organizing her social functions. Her constant presence caused some officers' aides to worry about the appearance of an attractive, outgoing woman cozying up to senior military leaders.

Read More..

'Shirtless' FBI Agent Who Hunted Petraeus Also Helped Stop LA Bombing

The FBI agent responsible for the downfall of two of the military’s most respected generals helped stop a terrorist from bombing Los Angeles International Airport and shot a man who attacked him with a knife at the gates of a military base. And he kicked off an investigation that not only upended Washington, it has many wondering if the FBI exceeded its authority.

Meet Frederick W. Humphries II — finally. Humphries, identified by The New York Times, is the mystery Florida-based FBI agent central to the ongoing scandal that brought down CIA Director David Petraeus and threatens the career of the Afghanistan war commander. At nearly every key moment in the tawdry sex scandal, Humphries has been there, lurking in the shadows, sometimes without his shirt on. No wonder colleagues interviewed by the Times described him as “obsessive.” Even before anyone knew who he was, someone set up a parody Twitter account for him, @shirtlessFBIguy.

In 1999, Humphries used his French language skills to interrogate a Francophone suspect. And that helped the Bureau find and stop Ahmed Ressam from bombing LAX airport in what would come to be known as the Millennium Plot, according to a Seattle Times piece. Described as “wiry [and] high-energy,” the former Army officer unraveled the cover story of a member of the Millennium Plot by calling bull on the operative’s fake Quebecois accent. Eleven years later, Humphries would shoot and kill a “disturbed knife-wielding man” who attacked him at the gates of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.

Humphries knew Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, an unofficial “ambassador” between Tampa and MacDill, home of U.S. Central Command, run in 2010 and 2011 by Petraeus and Gen. John Allen, now the commander of the Afghanistan war. When Kelley started receiving harassing e-mails this summer, Kelley asked her FBI friend Humphries to look into it. Humphries agreed, but soon found himself taken off the case, according to the Times. That would prove to be a fateful move.

The FBI has broad authorities over cyber-stalking investigations. “When something of this nature comes to our attention,” spokesman Paul Bresson tells Danger Room, “we work in close coordination with prosecutors to evaluate the facts and circumstances with respect to jurisdiction and potential violations of federal law.”

Not everyone is buying that the FBI would normally take up the case of a socialite receiving unwanted, nasty e-mails. “This is highly irregular. Highly, highly irregular. With a case of e-mail harassment, we’d normally say: we’re kind of busy, contact your local police,” a former federal prosecutor tells Danger Room. “You know that old cliche ‘let’s not make a federal case out of it?’ Well, in this case, it rings true.”

In any case, the feds did make a federal case out of it — just without Humphries. But Humphries didn’t let the case go. He sent shirtless pictures of himself to Kelley, something a lawyer for a law-enforcement guild who spoke with Humphries described to the Times as a “joke” that the national media have misunderstood. Still, his friends characterized him as “passionate” and “kind of an obsessive type.” It showed.

Humphries did not take kindly to being removed from a case he kickstarted. Evidently, he knew that the FBI expanded the case from cyber-harassment to one determining whether Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ mistress who harassed Kelley, received classified information from Petraeus. Humphries was convinced there was a Bureau cover-up to protect Obama, and in late October went to Rep. Dave Reichert, a Washington state Republican with whom Reichert had worked previously. Reichert — who would not respond to Danger Room’s queries — took Humphries to Rep. Eric Cantor, the GOP majority leader, on October 27.

Cantor and his staff met with Humphries shortly after Reichert made the introduction. But they did not know what his motivations were. Nor could they judge Humphries’ credibility. Worse, they had no idea the FBI had Petraeus under investigation in the first place. After conferencing, they decided the prudent thing to do was to take the information from the investigation to FBI Director Robert Mueller’s office. They did so on October 31, around the same time that FBI agents interviewed Petraeus and reportedly told him he was not under suspicion of leaking classified information.

A week later, on November 6 — election day — Mueller informed James Clapper, the director of national intelligence and Petraeus’ boss, of the investigation. The House Judiciary Committee has written to Mueller to determine, among other things, why Mueller waited a week, and why he informed neither the relevant congressional oversight committees or the White House. (Mueller on Wednesday briefed the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.) But Clapper essentially sealed Petraeus’ fate, urging him to deliver the resignation from the CIA that ultimately came on Friday.

There are questions about whether the FBI has exceeded its bounds in the case Humphries launched. While the FBI has wide latitude to investigate potential leaks of classified intelligence — the focus of the ongoing inquiry into Broadwell that brought Petraeus down — it is far less clear what authority the FBI had to give the Pentagon flirtatious emails between Allen and Kelley that came to agents’ attention in the course of that inquiry.

The Pentagon, whose inspector general is now investigating Allen, says there is no evidence Allen gave Kelley classified material or otherwise compromised national security. Under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, adultery is a crime. But a Defense official on Tuesday told reporters that Allen denies cheating on his wife, and the emails contain some “flirtatious” exchanges between the two. Yet while the so-called “Plain Sight Doctrine” holds that investigators can pursue evidence of a crime that they encounter in an unrelated investigation, flirtation is not evidence of adultery.

While many of the facts of Allen’s case have yet to be determined, some legal experts wonder if the FBI was required to ignore the emails between Allen and Kelley.

“Whether the supposed basis for the investigation was cyber-harassment, disclosure of classified information, or the vulnerability of the CIA chief to blackmailing, it’s difficult to see how a military commander’s flirtatious emails are relevant,” says Rachel Levinson-Waldman, a lawyer who studies information sharing between national-security agencies at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. In such a case, the FBI is usually required to “minimize” — that is, ignore or destroy — information on unrelated parties that it inadvertently collected. In practice, though, Levinson-Waldman cautions, FBI officials have strong incentives to hold on to such material, for fear of jeopardizing potential future investigations.

The FBI, argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Kurt Opsahl, appears to have engaged in “a series of stretches,” to get from investigating Broadwell to turning over Allen’s communications with Kelley to the Defense Department. “I don’t see how that email [traffic] is necessary or how there’s any kind of probable cause to believe there’s any link to the crimes the FBI was investigating,” Opsahl says.

In a statement released by his military lawyer late Wednesday, Allen vowed “to fully cooperate with the Inspector General Investigators” while his nomination to be NATO commander is officially on hold. There’s a possibility that Allen will be vindicated. But if he’s not, he has overzealous FBI investigators to thank — including Humphries, who started it all.

– additional reporting by Noah Shachtman

Read More..

Alzheimer’s Tied to Mutation Harming Immune Response

Alzheimer’s researchers and drug companies have for years concentrated on one hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease: the production of toxic shards of a protein that accumulate in plaques on the brain.

But now, in a surprising coincidence, two groups of researchers working from entirely different starting points have converged on a mutated gene involved in another aspect of Alzheimer’s disease: the immune system’s role in protecting against the disease. The mutation is suspected of interfering with the brain’s ability to prevent the buildup of plaque.

The discovery, researchers say, provides clues to how and why the disease progresses. The gene, known as TREM2, is only the second found to increase Alzheimer’s risk substantially in older people.

“It points very specifically to a potential metabolic pathway that you could intervene in to change the course of Alzheimer’s disease,” said William Thies, chief medical and scientific officer of the Alzheimer’s Association.

Much work remains to be done before scientists understand precisely how the newly discovered gene mutation leads to Alzheimer’s, but already there are some indications from studies in mice. When the gene is not mutated, white blood cells in the brain spring into action, gobbling up and eliminating the plaque-forming toxic protein, beta amyloid. As a result, Alzheimer’s can be staved off or averted.

But when the gene is mutated, the brain’s white blood cells are hobbled, making them less effective in their attack on beta amyloid.

People with the mutated gene have a threefold to fivefold increase in the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease in old age.

The intact gene, says John Hardy of University College London, “is a safety net.” And those with the mutation, he adds, “are living life without a safety net.” Dr. Hardy is lead author of one of the papers.

The discovery also suggests that a new type of drug could be developed to enhance the gene’s activity, perhaps allowing the brain’s white blood cells to do their work.

“The field is in desperate need of new therapeutic agents,” said Alison Goate, an Alzheimer’s researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who contributed data to Dr. Hardy’s study. “This will give us an alternative approach.”

The fact that two research groups converged on the same gene gives experts confidence in the findings. Both studies were published online Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine. “Together they make a good case that this really is an Alzheimer’s gene,” said Gerard Schellenberg, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved with the work.

The other gene found to raise the odds that a person will get Alzheimer’s, ApoE4, is much more common and confers about the same risk as the mutated version of TREM2. But it is still not clear why ApoE4, discovered in 1993, makes Alzheimer’s more likely.

Because the mutations in the newly discovered gene are rare, occurring in no more than 2 percent of Alzheimer’s patients, it makes no sense to start screening people for them, Dr. Thies said. Instead, the discovery provides new clues to the workings of Alzheimer’s disease.

To find the gene, a research group led by Dr. Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics of Iceland started with a simple question.

“We asked, ‘Can we find anything in the genome that separates those who are admitted to nursing homes before the age of 75 and those who are still living at home at 85?’ ” he said.

Scientists searched the genomes of 2,261 Icelanders and zeroed in on TREM2. Mutations in that gene were more common among people with Alzheimer’s, as well as those who did not have an Alzheimer’s diagnosis but who had memory problems and might be on their way to developing Alzheimer’s.

The researchers confirmed their results by looking for the gene in people with and without Alzheimer’s in populations studied at Emory University, as well as in Norway, the Netherlands and Germany.

The TREM2 connection surprised Dr. Stefansson. Although researchers have long noticed that the brain is inflamed in Alzheimer’s patients, he had dismissed inflammation as a major factor in the disease.

“I was of the opinion that the immune system would play a fairly small role, if any, in Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Stefansson said. “This discovery cured me of that bias.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Hardy and Rita Guerreiro at University College London, along with Andrew Singleton at the National Institute on Aging, were intrigued by a strange, rare disease. Only a few patients had been identified, but their symptoms were striking. They had crumbling bones and an unusual dementia, sclerosing leukoencephalopathy.

“It’s a weird disease,” Dr. Hardy said.

He saw one patient in her 30s whose brain disease manifested in sexually inappropriate behavior. Also, her bones kept breaking. The disease was caused by mutations that disabled both the copy of TREM2 that she had inherited from her mother and the one from her father.

Eventually the researchers searched for people who had a mutation in just one copy of TREM2. To their surprise, it turned out that these people were likely to have Alzheimer’s disease.

They then asked researchers around the world who had genetic data from people with and without Alzheimer’s to look for TREM2 mutations.

“Sure enough, they had good evidence,” Dr. Hardy said. The mutations occurred in one-half of 1 percent of the general population but in 1 to 2 percent of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

“That is a big effect,” Dr. Hardy said.

Read More..

Obama Meets C.E.O.’s as Fiscal Reckoning Nears

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

Ursula M. Burns, chief of Xerox, said the president discussed few specifics of a potential agreement but emphasized that “we cannot go over the fiscal cliff.”

WASHINGTON — President Obama extended an olive branch to business leaders Wednesday, seeking their support as he prepared to negotiate with Congressional Republicans over the fiscal impasse in Washington.

If Congress and the president cannot reach a deal to reduce the deficit by January, more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts will go into effect immediately — a prospect many chief executives and others warn could tip the economy back into recession.

Even so, Mr. Obama has some fence-mending to do before he can count on any serious backing from the business community.

“The president brought up that he hadn’t always had the best relationship with business, and he didn’t think he deserved that, but he understood that’s where things were and wanted it to be better,” said David M. Cote, chief executive of Honeywell. He was one of a dozen corporate leaders invited to meet Mr. Obama at the White House for 90 minutes Wednesday afternoon, after the president’s first news conference since the election.

While Mr. Obama did not present a detailed plan at Wednesday’s meeting or reveal what he would propose in terms of new corporate taxes, he strongly reiterated that he would not allow tax cuts for the middle class to expire. The president, according to attendees and aides, said he was committed to a balanced approach of reductions in entitlements and other government spending and increases in revenue.

With time running out, many people expect the president and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a short-term compromise that prevents the full slate of tax increases and spending cuts from hitting in January. That would give both sides more time to come up with a far-reaching deal on entitlement spending, even as they work on a broad tax overhaul later next year.

One corporate official briefed on the meeting said that the chief executives came away with a sense that Mr. Obama was poised to present a more formal proposal in the next few days, but that he did not press them for support on particular policies. “It was more of a back and forth,” he said.

The chief executives from some of the country’s biggest and best-known companies, including Procter & Gamble and I.B.M., were not unified on everything, according to one who was interviewed after the meeting.

Many of the executives who described the meeting would speak only on condition of anonymity.

The outreach to business comes as both the White House and corporate America maneuver ahead of the year-end deadline, as well as the beginning of Mr. Obama’s second term. Many executives were put off by what they saw as antibusiness rhetoric coming from the White House in his first term, and many also oppose tax increases on the rich that Mr. Obama favors but would hit them personally.

Both sides have plenty to gain from a better relationship. Business leaders want to buffer their image after the recession and the financial crisis, while Mr. Obama would gain valuable leverage if he could persuade even a few chief executives to come out in favor of higher taxes on people with incomes over $250,000.

Lloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, publicly endorsed higher tax rates in an opinion article published in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

“I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate, but only if they are joined by serious cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements,” he wrote.

While Mr. Blankfein and other Wall Street leaders have been speaking out about the dangers of the fiscal impasse, only one executive from the financial services industry, Kenneth I. Chenault of American Express, was at Wednesday’s meeting.

Afterward, the corporate leaders seemed pleased with the tone of the meeting but cautious about the prospect of finding common ground with the White House on the budget choices facing Congress and the president.

“I’d say everybody came away feeling pretty good about the whole discussion,” Mr. Cote said. “Now, all of us are C.E.O.’s, so we’ve learned not to confuse words with results. And that’s what we still need to see.”

Ursula M. Burns, chief executive of Xerox, who was also at the meeting, said afterward that it was clear that “we’re going to have to work through some sticking points.” But while “we didn’t get into too many specifics,” she said, it was also made clear that “we cannot go over the fiscal cliff.”

Ms. Burns’s comments about the potentially dire consequences of the fiscal impasse echoed those of other chief executives, including many in the Business Roundtable, which began an ad campaign Tuesday calling on lawmakers to resolve the issue quickly. The Campaign to Fix the Debt, a new group with a $40 million budget and the support of many Fortune 500 chiefs, began its own ad campaign on Monday.

Michael T. Duke, chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores, warned in a statement after the meeting that “before the end of the year, Washington needs to find an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff.” He said Walmart customers “are working hard to adapt to the ‘new normal,’ but their confidence is still very fragile. They are shopping for Christmas now, and they don’t need uncertainty over a tax increase.”

 

Helene Cooper reported from Washington and Nelson D. Schwartz from New York. Jackie Calmes contributed reporting from Washington.

Read More..

GOP senators cool to idea of Susan Rice as secretary of State

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans signaled stiffening resistance Tuesday to the Obama administration's possible nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State.

GOP strategists said lawmakers would use such a nomination as an opening for an extended examination of how the administration handled the Sept. 11 militant attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. Although the Senate rarely rejects a president's Cabinet picks, the strategists said, the process could be so painful and lengthy that Obama might come to regret his choice.

A senior Republican aide said he couldn't predict whether the nomination would be voted down, but "the question is, is this worth spending political capital and taking punches on a subject they'd like to distance themselves from?"

"Whether it's fair to her or not, she's become a poster child for perceptions that there's been a coverup by the administration," he said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to address the topic publicly.

Some Senate Republicans have already begun discussing how they would question Rice, he said, and plan to gather information from House Republican colleagues to bore in on questions they say the administration has not yet satisfactorily answered.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters he considered Rice "tainted" by her role in the administration's handling of Benghazi, and recommended that the White House instead choose Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whom administration officials have also been considering for the diplomatic post.

Administration officials said that Rice, a pillar of Obama's foreign policy team since the 2008 election campaign, was a leading candidate for the post, and that they would not be deterred by Republican warnings. Officials and some others familiar with the process predicted that the GOP would eventually end its resistance to Rice because it would become clear that her disputed comments after the attack were prepared by other U.S. officials for her appearances on Sept. 16 talk shows.

Rice said in those TV appearances that the attack was motivated by anger at a U.S.-made film trailer that denounced the prophet Muhammad, and that it was not a planned assault.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who is expected to become the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, found it "beyond belief" that Rice could have described the attack as motivated by anger over the film, when U.S. officials in Benghazi had told officials in Washington during the attack that it was a terrorist assault.

"I still don't know how anybody of that capacity could have been on television five days later saying the things that were said," Corker said. "I don't know how that could happen."

On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an influential Republican on foreign policy issues, predicted that Rice's nomination would have a difficult time making it through the Senate. He said he would not vote for Rice unless she provided more satisfactory explanations of her actions.

A single senator can hold up a nomination if he or she is determined to do so. But a more likely avenue to blocking confirmation would be with a filibuster, aides said. Sixty votes are required to end a filibuster — more than the number of senators in the Democratic caucus.

Senate aides said the Republican caucus, which is regrouping after the election defeat, might decide that shooting down Obama's choice would be a way of underscoring its unhappiness with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi issue. But historically, the Senate has deferred to presidents on Cabinet picks, and Republicans would run the risk of looking unreasonable.

Clinton's intention to leave the post has been public for more than a year, and the candidacies of Rice and Kerry have been discussed for months. Both are interested in the job.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Rice was the leading candidate for the diplomatic post and Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, was under consideration as secretary of Defense. If Kerry took either post, Republicans would have a chance to win his Senate seat in a special election — further narrowing the Democrats' majority.

Sources who have been familiar with past nominations say that Obama confers with only a small circle on his top choices, and sometimes emerges with surprise selections. Jim Yong Kim, Obama's choice to head the World Bank, was one such case.

As a second-term president, Obama has wide latitude to pick the candidate he believes will best serve his interests. He is under less pressure to satisfy political constituencies, some Democrats pointed out.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to comment on the nomination, but said Obama believed Rice had done an "excellent job" at the United Nations.

paul.richter@latimes.com

Michael Memoli and Christi Parsons in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Read More..

Deodorizing Underwear: Why Does Japan Get All the Cool Stuff?

Soon, silent but deadly will just be … silent. At least, that’s the promise a Japanese company is making about its line of deodorizing underwear, which has reportedly become a hit among Japanese businessmen.

Seiren, the company behind the Deoest underwear line, says it has been working on the garments for a few years. The deodorizing power comes from odor-absorbing ceramic particles that are incorporated into the fibers of the underwear. Though Sieren says the garments were originally developed for those suffering from irritable bowel syndrome, Deoest has quickly gained popularity among Japanese businessmen.

Following the success of the underwear, the company added an array of other odor-eliminating undergarments for other oft-smelly body parts, including socks and undershirts.

via PhysOrg

Read More..

Petraeus enlisted for cameo in ‘Call of Duty’ game

LOS ANGELES (AP) — David Petraeus has landed on his feet with a new gig in “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.”

The retired Army general who stepped down as CIA director last week amid a scandal surrounding his extramarital affair pops up in the highly anticipated Activision Blizzard Inc. first-person shooter game released Tuesday.

A character with Petraeus’ name and likeness voiced by Jim Meskimen briefly appears as the Secretary of Defense in the year 2025.

The cameo was first reported by the gaming site Kotaku.com.

“Call of Duty” games have often employed virtual renditions of political figures.

“Black Ops II” also features an encounter with Manuel Noriega, a female president resembling current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, an aircraft carrier named the USS Barack Obama and an appearance by retired Lt. Col. Oliver North.

Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Kidney Donors Given Mandatory Safeguards

ST. LOUIS — Addressing long-held concerns about whether organ donors have adequate protections, the country’s transplant regulators acted late Monday to require that hospitals thoroughly inform living kidney donors of the risks they face, fully evaluate their medical and psychological suitability, and then track their health for two years after donation.

Enactment of the policies by the United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the transplant system under a federal contract, followed six years of halting development and debate.

Meeting at a St. Louis hotel, the group’s board voted to establish uniform minimum standards for a field long regarded as a medical and ethical Wild West. The organ network, whose initial purpose was to oversee donation from people who had just died, has struggled at times to keep pace with rapid developments in donations from the living.

“There is no question that this is a major development in living donor protection,” said Dr. Christie P. Thomas, a nephrologist at the University of Iowa and the chairman of the network’s living donor committee.

Yet some donor advocates complained that the measures did not go far enough, and argued that the organ network, in its mission to encourage transplants, has a conflict of interest when it comes to safeguarding donors.

Three years ago, the network issued some of the same policies as voluntary guidelines, only to have the Department of Health and Human Services insist they be made mandatory.

Although long-term data on the subject is scarce, few living kidney donors are thought to suffer lasting physical or psychological effects. Kidney donations, known as nephrectomies, are typically done laparoscopically these days through a series of small incisions. The typical patient may spend only a few nights in a hospital and feel largely recovered after several months.

Kidneys are by far the most transplanted organs, and there have been nearly as many living donors as deceased ones over the last decade. What data is available suggests that those with one kidney typically live as long as those with two, and that the risk of a donor dying during the procedure is roughly 3 in 10,000.

But kidney transplants, like all surgery, can sometimes end in catastrophe.

In May at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, a 41-year-old mother of three died when her aorta was accidentally cut during surgery to donate a kidney to her brother. In other recent isolated cases, patients have received donor kidneys infected with undetected H.I.V. or hepatitis C.

Less clear are any longer-term effects on donors. Research conducted by the United Network for Organ Sharing shows that of roughly 70,000 people who donated kidneys between late 1999 and early 2011, 27 died within two years of medical causes that may — or may not — have been related to donation. For a small number of donors, their remaining kidney failed, and they required dialysis or a transplant.

The number of living donors — 5,770 in 2011 — has dropped 10 percent over the last two years, possibly because the struggling economy has made it difficult for prospective donors to take time off from work to recuperate. With the national kidney waiting list now stretching past 94,000 people, and thousands on the list dying each year, transplant officials have said they must improve confidence in the system so more people will donate.

The average age of donors has been rising, posing additional medical risks. And new ethical questions have been raised by the emergence of paired kidney exchanges and transplant chains started by good Samaritans who give an organ to a stranger.

Brad Kornfeld, who donated a kidney to his father in 2004, told the board that it had been impossible to find good information about what to expect, leaving him to search for answers on unreliable Internet chat rooms. He said he had almost backed out.

“If information is power,” said Mr. Kornfeld, a Coloradan who serves on the living donor committee, “the lack of information is crippling.”

Under the policies approved this week, the organ network will require hospitals to collect medical data, including laboratory test results, on most living donors to study lasting effects. Results must be reported at six months, one year and two years.

Similar regulations have been in place since 2000, but they did not require blood and urine testing, and hospitals were allowed to report donors who could not be found as simply lost.

That happened often. In recent years, hospitals have submitted basic clinical information — like whether donors were alive or dead — for only 65 percent of donors and lab data for fewer than 40 percent, according to the organ network. Although the network holds the authority, no hospital has ever been seriously sanctioned for noncompliance.

“It’s time we put some teeth into our policy,” said Jill McMaster, a board member from Tennessee.

By 2015, transplant programs will have to report thorough clinical information on at least 80 percent of donors and lab results on at least 70 percent. The requirements phase in at lower levels for the next two years.

Dr. Stuart M. Flechner of the Cleveland Clinic, the chairman of a coalition of medical societies that made recommendations to the organ network, said 9 of 10 hospitals would currently not meet the new requirement.

Donna Luebke, a kidney donor from Ohio who once served on the organ network’s board, said the new standards would matter only if enforcement were more rigorous. She noted that the organization was dominated by transplant doctors: “UNOS is nothing but the foxes watching the henhouse,” she said.

Another of the new regulations prescribes in detail the medical and psychological screenings that hospitals must conduct for potential donors. It requires automatic exclusion if the potential donor has diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension or H.I.V., among other conditions.

The new policies also require that hospitals appoint an independent advocate to counsel and represent donors, and that donors receive detailed information in advance about medical, psychological and financial risks.

Read More..