Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Fishy Business
by Brian Hartman, ABC News
A new investigation provides fresh evidence that restaurants and markets continue to dupe seafood lovers into paying top dollar for low-grade fish.
As part of a special “Fishy Business” series, the Boston Globe spent five months buying fish from dozens of establishments throughout Massachusetts and sending the samples off to a lab in Canada. DNA tests found 48 percent of the fish had been mislabeled as a more expensive type of fish.
Fish samples were gathered from 134 restaurants, grocery stores and seafood markets, and the results were staggering. Every one of 23 white tuna samples tested turned out to be something other than tuna. In most cases the fish labeled tuna was escolar, which the Globe said was “nicknamed the Ex-Lax of fish by some in the industry for the digestion problems it can cause.”
All but two of the 26 red snapper samples were another kind of fish, the Globe reported. That came as no surprise to Cape Cod fisherman Eric Hesse, who was quoted in the report.
“Mislabeling fish is at a ridiculous level,” said Hesse. “The dealers and restaurants have a vested interest in keeping the illusion going. Every time they can say they are selling fresh, local fish and get away with selling [Pacific] frozen, they don’t have to buy it from us. It kills us.”
The problem extends far beyond Boston and affects consumers nationwide. Earlier this year, ABC News correspondent Elisabeth Leamy reported that seafood may be mislabeled as often as 70 percent of the time.
“According to Food and Drug Administration port inspections,” Leamys said. “A third of seafood sold in the U.S. is mislabeled as one type when it’s actually something else, even something cheaper.” (...)
“American consumers would be outraged if they ordered roast beef and they got horse meat or God forbid, whale meat,” Michael Hirshfield, a chief scientist at Oceana, told Leamy. “They should be outraged if they order snapper and they get tilapia or some endangered species.”
Read more:
A new investigation provides fresh evidence that restaurants and markets continue to dupe seafood lovers into paying top dollar for low-grade fish.
As part of a special “Fishy Business” series, the Boston Globe spent five months buying fish from dozens of establishments throughout Massachusetts and sending the samples off to a lab in Canada. DNA tests found 48 percent of the fish had been mislabeled as a more expensive type of fish.Fish samples were gathered from 134 restaurants, grocery stores and seafood markets, and the results were staggering. Every one of 23 white tuna samples tested turned out to be something other than tuna. In most cases the fish labeled tuna was escolar, which the Globe said was “nicknamed the Ex-Lax of fish by some in the industry for the digestion problems it can cause.”
All but two of the 26 red snapper samples were another kind of fish, the Globe reported. That came as no surprise to Cape Cod fisherman Eric Hesse, who was quoted in the report.
“Mislabeling fish is at a ridiculous level,” said Hesse. “The dealers and restaurants have a vested interest in keeping the illusion going. Every time they can say they are selling fresh, local fish and get away with selling [Pacific] frozen, they don’t have to buy it from us. It kills us.”
The problem extends far beyond Boston and affects consumers nationwide. Earlier this year, ABC News correspondent Elisabeth Leamy reported that seafood may be mislabeled as often as 70 percent of the time.
“According to Food and Drug Administration port inspections,” Leamys said. “A third of seafood sold in the U.S. is mislabeled as one type when it’s actually something else, even something cheaper.” (...)
“American consumers would be outraged if they ordered roast beef and they got horse meat or God forbid, whale meat,” Michael Hirshfield, a chief scientist at Oceana, told Leamy. “They should be outraged if they order snapper and they get tilapia or some endangered species.”
Read more:
Inteview: Keith Richards
by Chris Heath, GQ
He sits on a sofa, sipping from a plastic cup, answering a few questions about the life—"I've led so many lives....Which life are you talking about?"—that has led him here.
What remains for you to achieve?
"I've never tried to achieve anything. I achieved everything I wanted to achieve by being in the Rolling Stones and making records. That was the only real goal in my life, ever, but since that happened so quickly, like a laser beam...I think the next goal was not to become one-hit wonders. I mean, after that, no real goal, except to sort of keep on going. I mean, what does an entertainer do, basically? You get onstage and make other people feel happy. Make them feel good. Turn them on."
Is that the word you prefer? "Entertainer" more than "musician"?
"I wouldn't want to impress them with musicianship. I want them there because they want to be there and because they know that they're going to have a damn good time. I wouldn't take it any higher than that."
And what's the joy or fulfilment in achieving that?
"Well, you'd have to be there, pal. To know what it's like to be on a Stones stage with an audience. The exchange of energy that goes on. It's immeasurable. In fact they don't have meters to do it."
What does physically making music give to you?
"Well, it's better than drugs."
People may listen to that, coming from you.
"And the fact that I've written a lot of music on drugs doesn't negate that statement. I mean, give me a guitar, give me a piano, give me a broom and string, I wouldn't get bored anywhere. I could break out of jail on that stuff and still be in jail. It's a freedom nobody can take from you."
Is there anything you still need to prove?
"To prove? I was innocent! Of everything!"
Richards likes to play guitar every single day. Maybe an hour or so. "Afternoons, evenings. Pick around, play some Robert Johnson blues, hopefully make an incredible beautiful mistake which will lead me into another area. I do it for me. You know, I'm a selfish son of a bitch. I do it because it turns me on." (As for the mornings...here's more than you wanted to know about how each bright new twenty-first-century-Keith-Richards day begins: "First we have the bowel movement. Cool, that's that out of the way. Seen a friend off to the coast. And then you see what's on the agenda....")
It's a routine (the guitar playing, not the other one) that was disrupted while he was working on his million-selling autobiography, Life. "I hardly played at all for two years," he says. After our conversation, he is due in the studio with drummer Steve Jordan, his partner in his sometime other band, the X-Pensive Winos. "I'm sort of basically recovering from the book, and this is my therapy at the moment," he explains. "In the process of doing it, my chops are coming back." So far, they've got six songs that may or may not turn into an album. "Songwriting's a weird game. I never intended to become one—I fell into this by mistake, and I can't get out of it. It fascinates me. I like to point out the rawer points of life." That chuckle. "I work the seamier side of life."
And, I note, it's been good to him.
He nods. A sly grin. "There's a lot of seam," he says.
He sits on a sofa, sipping from a plastic cup, answering a few questions about the life—"I've led so many lives....Which life are you talking about?"—that has led him here.
What remains for you to achieve?
"I've never tried to achieve anything. I achieved everything I wanted to achieve by being in the Rolling Stones and making records. That was the only real goal in my life, ever, but since that happened so quickly, like a laser beam...I think the next goal was not to become one-hit wonders. I mean, after that, no real goal, except to sort of keep on going. I mean, what does an entertainer do, basically? You get onstage and make other people feel happy. Make them feel good. Turn them on."Is that the word you prefer? "Entertainer" more than "musician"?
"I wouldn't want to impress them with musicianship. I want them there because they want to be there and because they know that they're going to have a damn good time. I wouldn't take it any higher than that."
And what's the joy or fulfilment in achieving that?
"Well, you'd have to be there, pal. To know what it's like to be on a Stones stage with an audience. The exchange of energy that goes on. It's immeasurable. In fact they don't have meters to do it."
What does physically making music give to you?
"Well, it's better than drugs."
People may listen to that, coming from you.
"And the fact that I've written a lot of music on drugs doesn't negate that statement. I mean, give me a guitar, give me a piano, give me a broom and string, I wouldn't get bored anywhere. I could break out of jail on that stuff and still be in jail. It's a freedom nobody can take from you."
Is there anything you still need to prove?
"To prove? I was innocent! Of everything!"
Richards likes to play guitar every single day. Maybe an hour or so. "Afternoons, evenings. Pick around, play some Robert Johnson blues, hopefully make an incredible beautiful mistake which will lead me into another area. I do it for me. You know, I'm a selfish son of a bitch. I do it because it turns me on." (As for the mornings...here's more than you wanted to know about how each bright new twenty-first-century-Keith-Richards day begins: "First we have the bowel movement. Cool, that's that out of the way. Seen a friend off to the coast. And then you see what's on the agenda....")
It's a routine (the guitar playing, not the other one) that was disrupted while he was working on his million-selling autobiography, Life. "I hardly played at all for two years," he says. After our conversation, he is due in the studio with drummer Steve Jordan, his partner in his sometime other band, the X-Pensive Winos. "I'm sort of basically recovering from the book, and this is my therapy at the moment," he explains. "In the process of doing it, my chops are coming back." So far, they've got six songs that may or may not turn into an album. "Songwriting's a weird game. I never intended to become one—I fell into this by mistake, and I can't get out of it. It fascinates me. I like to point out the rawer points of life." That chuckle. "I work the seamier side of life."
And, I note, it's been good to him.
He nods. A sly grin. "There's a lot of seam," he says.
The Complicated Psychology of Revenge
by Eric Jaffe, Observer
A few years ago a group of Swiss researchers scanned the brains of people who had been wronged during an economic exchange game. These people had trusted their partners to split a pot of money with them, only to find that the partners had chosen to keep the loot for themselves. The researchers then gave the people a chance to punish their greedy partners, and for a full minute, as the victims contemplated revenge, the activity in their brains was recorded. The decision caused a rush of neural activity in the caudate nucleus, an area of the brain known to process rewards (in previous work, the caudate has delighted in cocaine and nicotine use). The findings, published in a 2004 issue of Science, gave physiological confirmation to what the scorned have been saying for years: Revenge is sweet.
A thirst for vengeance is nothing if not timeless. It is as classic as Homer and Hamlet, and as contemporary as Don Corleone and Quentin Tarantino; as old as the eyes and teeth traded in the Bible, and as fresh as the raid that took the life of Osama bin Laden. But while the idea of revenge is no doubt delectable — the very phrase “just desserts” promises a treat — much of its sugar is confined to the coating. The actual execution of revenge carries a bitter cost of time, emotional and physical energy, and even lives. That minute before revenge is savory, as the authors of the Science study recognized; but what about the days and weeks that follow?
In the past few years, psychological scientists have discovered many ways in which the practice of revenge fails to fulfill its sweet expectations. Behavioral scientists have observed that instead of quenching hostility, revenge can prolong the unpleasantness of the original offense and that merely bringing harm upon an offender is not enough to satisfy a person’s vengeful spirit. They have also found that instead of delivering justice, revenge often creates only a cycle of retaliation, in part because one person’s moral equilibrium rarely aligns with another’s. The upshot of these insights is a better sense of why the pursuit of revenge has persisted through the ages, despite tasting a lot more sour than advertised.
Read more:
A few years ago a group of Swiss researchers scanned the brains of people who had been wronged during an economic exchange game. These people had trusted their partners to split a pot of money with them, only to find that the partners had chosen to keep the loot for themselves. The researchers then gave the people a chance to punish their greedy partners, and for a full minute, as the victims contemplated revenge, the activity in their brains was recorded. The decision caused a rush of neural activity in the caudate nucleus, an area of the brain known to process rewards (in previous work, the caudate has delighted in cocaine and nicotine use). The findings, published in a 2004 issue of Science, gave physiological confirmation to what the scorned have been saying for years: Revenge is sweet. A thirst for vengeance is nothing if not timeless. It is as classic as Homer and Hamlet, and as contemporary as Don Corleone and Quentin Tarantino; as old as the eyes and teeth traded in the Bible, and as fresh as the raid that took the life of Osama bin Laden. But while the idea of revenge is no doubt delectable — the very phrase “just desserts” promises a treat — much of its sugar is confined to the coating. The actual execution of revenge carries a bitter cost of time, emotional and physical energy, and even lives. That minute before revenge is savory, as the authors of the Science study recognized; but what about the days and weeks that follow?
In the past few years, psychological scientists have discovered many ways in which the practice of revenge fails to fulfill its sweet expectations. Behavioral scientists have observed that instead of quenching hostility, revenge can prolong the unpleasantness of the original offense and that merely bringing harm upon an offender is not enough to satisfy a person’s vengeful spirit. They have also found that instead of delivering justice, revenge often creates only a cycle of retaliation, in part because one person’s moral equilibrium rarely aligns with another’s. The upshot of these insights is a better sense of why the pursuit of revenge has persisted through the ages, despite tasting a lot more sour than advertised.
Read more:
Monday, October 24, 2011
MERS
[ed. President Obama proposed today to help hundreds of thousands of homeowners refinance their mortgages at a better interest rate. But, as always, there might be a little devil in the details. If you're unfamiliar with MERS, read on and reflect on all the ways bankers have gamed the system.]
by NY Times
The Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, is owned by banks and mortgage finance firms. It was created during the housing boom to smooth the process of turning mortgages into complex securities -- and to allow lenders to avoid paying registration fees to counties each time the mortgage changed hands. It is the nation's largest electronic mortgage tracking system.
In the fall of 2010, as evidence mounted that many foreclosures may have been mishandled, the system was faulted for sloppiness and questions were raised about whether it was used to sidestep legal requirements. The rising calls for halts to foreclosures suggested that the new approach could in fact have created huge new vulnerabilities for lenders.
In October, on the same day that all 50 state attorneys general announced that they would investigate foreclosure practices, JPMorgan Chase & Company became the first big lender to acknowledge that it had stopped using MERS for foreclosures.
The registration system is an electronic database meant to replace the reams of paper that were once the cornerstone of the residential mortgage market. The registry was also meant to eliminate the need to record changes in property ownership in local land records.
About 60 percent of mortgages in this country show up in local records as being owned by the service. In fact, none are owned by MERS. It was created to act as an agent for others, whether banks or securitization trusts, which own the actual mortgages -- an arrangement that lawyers for homeowners and some judges have called into question.
For centuries, when a property changed hands, the transaction was submitted to county clerks who recorded it and filed it away. These records ensured that the history of a property’s ownership was complete and that the priority of multiple liens placed on the property — a mortgage and a home equity loan, for example — was accurate.
During the mortgage lending spree, however, home loans changed hands constantly. Those that ended up packaged inside of mortgage pools, for instance, were often involved in a dizzying series of transactions. So to avoid the costs and complexity of tracking all these exchanges, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the mortgage industry set up MERS to record loan assignments electronically. This company didn’t own the mortgages it registered, but it was listed in public records either as a nominee for the actual owner of the note or as the original mortgage holder.
by NY Times The Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, is owned by banks and mortgage finance firms. It was created during the housing boom to smooth the process of turning mortgages into complex securities -- and to allow lenders to avoid paying registration fees to counties each time the mortgage changed hands. It is the nation's largest electronic mortgage tracking system.
In the fall of 2010, as evidence mounted that many foreclosures may have been mishandled, the system was faulted for sloppiness and questions were raised about whether it was used to sidestep legal requirements. The rising calls for halts to foreclosures suggested that the new approach could in fact have created huge new vulnerabilities for lenders.
In October, on the same day that all 50 state attorneys general announced that they would investigate foreclosure practices, JPMorgan Chase & Company became the first big lender to acknowledge that it had stopped using MERS for foreclosures.
The registration system is an electronic database meant to replace the reams of paper that were once the cornerstone of the residential mortgage market. The registry was also meant to eliminate the need to record changes in property ownership in local land records.
About 60 percent of mortgages in this country show up in local records as being owned by the service. In fact, none are owned by MERS. It was created to act as an agent for others, whether banks or securitization trusts, which own the actual mortgages -- an arrangement that lawyers for homeowners and some judges have called into question.
For centuries, when a property changed hands, the transaction was submitted to county clerks who recorded it and filed it away. These records ensured that the history of a property’s ownership was complete and that the priority of multiple liens placed on the property — a mortgage and a home equity loan, for example — was accurate.
During the mortgage lending spree, however, home loans changed hands constantly. Those that ended up packaged inside of mortgage pools, for instance, were often involved in a dizzying series of transactions. So to avoid the costs and complexity of tracking all these exchanges, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the mortgage industry set up MERS to record loan assignments electronically. This company didn’t own the mortgages it registered, but it was listed in public records either as a nominee for the actual owner of the note or as the original mortgage holder.
Jon Herington (Steely Dan)
by Fretboard Journal
For the last decade or so, Jon Herington has been playing alongside Donald Fagan and Walter Becker at Steely Dan tour stops. Night after night, he's performing some of the most complicated arrangements ever crafted for pop music, playing parts originally forged into our memories by guitar legends such as Jeff "Skunk" Baxter and Larry Carlton. Yet, as anyone who has caught Steely Dan recently can attest, Herington is living up to this monumental task. The NYC-based musician, who also plays alongside Madeleine Peyroux and has his own solo career, made time to talk to the Fretboard Journal before his recent Seattle tour date. Look for a longer piece with Herrington in a forthcoming Journal.
FJ: Steely Dan must have one of the more fanatical fan bases around. And every night, you're asked to play on these incredibly complex tunes that the fans have committed to memory, both note and tone-wise. How do you approach a gig like that?
JH: I certainly don’t try all the time to get the sounds that are on the records. For one, it would be really difficult to do. But I often will go for something sort of similar, just because it does seem like what the tune calls for, often. For instance, on "Peg," it would probably sound a little odd not to use a sort of cranked up sound that has some sustain and distortion. (...)
The challenge with this gig is to find a way to keep the level of quality of the playing -- the soloing -- up high, because the records are so great that way. Also, to make sure there’s room for me to do something that’s fresh and spontaneous and not feel locked in to repeating myself all the time. People know the guitar solos on the records better than I do sometimes.
Read more:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)