After Pledging Loyalty to Successor, Pope Leaves Vatican

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI left the Vatican by helicopter on Thursday afternoon to spend the final hours of his nearly eight-year, scandal-dogged papacy at the papal summer residence. Onlookers in St. Peter’s Square cheered, church bells rang and Romans stood on rooftops to wave flags as he flew from Rome to Castel Gandolfo, a hilltop town southeast of the city where popes have summered for centuries.

More carillons heralded his arrival, and he was greeted by a vivid contingent of silver-suited firemen, gendarmes in red capes, and bishops in black and pink.

Addressing cheering well-wishers from a window at the residence, he said: “Dear friends, I am happy to be with you! Thanks for your friendship and affection! You know this is a different day than others.”

His retirement formally takes effect at 8 p.m. local time (2 p.m. Eastern). “I am just a pilgrim who has reached the last stage in his pilgrimage on this earth,” he said.

Earlier in the day, in one of his concluding acts, Benedict addressed a gathering of more than 100 cardinals who will elect his successor, urging them to be “like an orchestra” that harmonizes for the good of the Roman Catholic Church. From a gilded throne in the Clementine Hall of the Apostolic Palace, the pope thanked the cardinals collectively, and then rose to greet each of them individually.

Draped in a red and gold mantle lined with snow-white ermine, Benedict clasped each cardinal’s hands as he removed his red skullcap and kissed ther pope’s ring. Benedict told them, “I will be close to you in prayer” as the next leader of the church is chosen. Many of them were appointed to their powerful positions as so-called princes of the church by Benedict or by his predecessor, John Paul II, and are thus seen as doctrinal conservatives in their mold.

“Among you is also the future pope, whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience,” Benedict told the cardinals, reflecting the concern among Vatican watchers about what it will mean to have two popes residing in the Vatican.

As pope emeritus, Benedict intends to reside in Castel Gandolfo for several months and then return to the Vatican to live in an apartment being prepared for him in a convent whose gardens offer a perfect view of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.

He surprised many on Feb. 11 when he announced that, feeling his age and diminishing strength, he would retire, a dramatic step that sent the Vatican hierarchy spinning. He reassured the faithful on Sunday that he was not “abandoning” the church, but would continue to serve, even in retirement. In an emotional and unusually personal message on Wednesday, his final public audience in St. Peter’s Square, Benedict said that he sometimes felt that “the waters were agitated and the winds were blowing against” the church.

His retirement will bring changes in style and substance. Rather than the heavy ornate robes he wore to greet the cardinals, Benedict will wear a simple white cassock, with brown shoes from Mexico replacing the red slippers that he and other popes have traditionally worn, the color symbolizing the blood of the martyrs.

The conclave to elect the next pope, expected in mid-March, will begin amid a swirl of scandal. On Monday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Britain’s senior Roman Catholic cleric, said he would not participate in the conclave, after having been accused of “inappropriate acts” with several priests, charges that he denies. Other cardinals have also come under fire in sexual abuse scandals, but only Cardinal O’Brien has recused himself.

On Monday, Benedict met with three cardinals he had asked to conduct an investigation into a Vatican scandal in which hundreds of confidential documents were leaked to the press and published in a tell-all book last May, the worst security breach in the church’s modern history. The three cardinals compiled a hefty dossier on the scandal, which Benedict has entrusted only to his successor, not to the cardinals entering the conclave, the Vatican spokesman said earlier this week.

On Thursday, Panorama, a weekly magazine, reported that the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, had been conducting his own investigation into the leaks scandal, including requesting wiretaps on the phones of some members of the Vatican hierarchy. That would be taking a page from the playbook of magistrates in Italy, where wiretaps are extensive.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said on Thursday that in the context of an investigation into the leaks, magistrates of the Vatican, not the secretary of state, “might have authorized some wiretaps or some checks,” but nothing on a significant scale. The idea of “an investigation that creates an atmosphere of fear of mistrust that will now affect the conclave has no foundation in reality.” A shy theologian who appeared to have little interest in the internal politics of the Vatican, Benedict has said that he is retiring “freely, and for the good of the church,” entrusting it to a successor who has more strength than he does. But shadows linger. The next pope will inherit a hierarchy buffeted by crises of governance as well as power struggles over the Vatican Bank, which has struggled to conform to international transparency norms.

Many faithful have welcomed Benedict’s gesture as a sign of humility and humanity, a rational decision taken by a man who no longer feels up to the job.

As he stood near St. Peter’s Square on Wednesday after attending the pope’s last public audience, Vincenzo Petrucci, 26, said he had come to express “not so much solidarity, but more like closeness” to the pope. “At first we felt astonished, shocked and disoriented,” he said. “But then we saw what a weighty decision it must have been. He seemed almost lonely.”

Many in the Vatican hierarchy, known as the Roman Curia, are still reeling from the news. Many are bereaved and others seem almost angry. “We are terribly, terribly, terribly shocked,” one senior Vatican official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 28, 2013

A photo credit with an image on earlier version of this article misstated the photographer. He is Alberto Pizzoli, not Alberto Pizzolialberto.

Read More..

Donald Trump returns to the 'Apprentice' boardroom

NEW YORK (AP) — There is something Donald Trump says he doesn't know.

Trump has welcomed a reporter to his 26th-floor corner office in Trump Tower to talk about "All-Star Celebrity Apprentice." And here in person, this one-of-a-kind TV star, billionaire businessman, ubiquitous brand mogul and media maestro strikes a softer pose than he has typically practiced in his decades on public display.

Relaxed behind a broad desk whose mirror sheen is mostly hidden by stacks of paper that suggest work is actually done there, Trump is pleasant, even chummy, with a my-time-is-your-time easiness greeting his guest.

He even contradicts his status as a legendary know-it-all with this surprising admission: There's a corner of the universe he doesn't understand.

The ratings woes of NBC, which airs his show, are on Trump's mind at the moment, and as he hastens to voice confidence in the network's powers-that-be ("They will absolutely get it right"), he marvels at the mysteries of the entertainment world.

"If I buy a great piece of real estate and do the right building, I'm really gonna have a success," he says. "It may be MORE successful or LESS successful, but you can sort of predict how it's gonna do. But show business is like trial and error! It's amazing!"

He loves to recall the iffy prospects for "The Apprentice" when it debuted in January 2004. With show biz, he declares, "You NEVER know what's gonna happen."

Except, of course, when you do.

"I do have an instinct," he confides. "Oftentimes, I'll see shows go on and I'll say, 'That show will never make it,' and I'm always right. And I understand talent. Does anybody ask me? No. But if they did, I would be doing them a big service. I know what people want."

So maybe he does know it all. In any case, lots of people wanted "The Apprentice." In its first season, it averaged nearly 21 million viewers each week.

And it gave Trump a signature TV platform that clinched his image as corporate royalty. He presided in a mood-lit stagecraft boardroom where celebrity subjects addressed him as "Mr. Trump" and shrank at that dismissive flick of his wrist and dreaded catchphrase, "You're fired."

The two-hour premiere of "All-Star Celebrity Apprentice" (Sunday at 9 p.m. EST) starts by rallying its 14 veteran contenders in the even more evocative setting of the 2,000-year-old Egyptian Temple of Dendur at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

There, grandly, Trump receives such returning players as Gary Busey, Stephen Baldwin, LaToya Jackson and reality mean queen Omarosa.

Soon, teammates are chosen by team leaders Bret Michaels and Trace Adkins. Their first assignment: concoct a winning recipe for meatballs, then sell more of them than the rival team.

This is the 13th edition of the "Apprentice" franchise, which has now slipped to less than one-third its original viewership, according to Nielsen Co. figures. But even an audience matching last season's 6.26 million viewers would be pleasant news for NBC, which has recently fallen to fifth place in prime time, behind even Spanish-language Univision.

"I could probably do another show when I don't enjoy 'The Apprentice' anymore," says the 66-year-old Trump, mulling his TV future. "I have been asked by virtually every network on television to do a show for them. But there's something to sticking with what you have: This is a good formula. It works."

Years before "The Apprentice," Trump had hit on a winning formula for himself: Supercharge his business success with relentless self-promotion, putting a human face — his! — on the capitalist system, and embedding his persona in a feedback loop of performance and fame.

Since then, he has ruled as America's larger-than-life tycoon and its patron saint of material success. Which raises the question: Does he play a souped-up version of himself for his audience as Donald Trump, a character bigger and broader than its real-life inspiration?

He laughs, flashing something like a you-got-me smile.

"Perhaps," he replies. "Not consciously. But perhaps I do. Perhaps I do."

It began as early as 1987, when his first book, "Trump: The Art of the Deal," became a huge best-seller.

And even without a regular showcase, he was no stranger to TV. For instance, in the span of just 10 days in May 1997, Trump not only was seen on his "Miss Universe Pageant" telecast on CBS, but also made sitcom cameo appearances as himself on NBC's "Suddenly Susan" and ABC's "Drew Carey Show."

Meanwhile, as a frequent talk-show guest then (as now), he publicized his projects and pushed his brand.

"I'll be on that show for 20 or 30 or 60 minutes, and it costs me nothing," he notes. "When you have an opportunity for promotion, take it! It's free."

No one has ever accused Trump of hiding his light under a bushel. But his promotional drive (or naked craving for attention) has taken him to extremes that conventional wisdom warns against: saying and doing things that might hurt your bottom line.

Item: Trump's noisy, even race-baiting challenge to President Barack Obama to prove his American citizenship. This crusade has earned Trump the title from one editorialist as "birther blowhard."

For an industrialist and entertainer, where's the profit in voicing political views that could tick off a segment of your market or your audience?

"It's a great question, and a hard question to answer, because you happen to be right," Trump begins. "The fact is, some people love me, and some people the-opposite-of-love me, because of what I do and because of what I say. But I'm a very truthful person. By speaking out, it's probably not a good thing for me personally, but I feel I have an obligation to do it."

But isn't he being divisive with some of his pronouncements?

"I think 'divisive' would be a fair word in some cases, not in all cases," he replies. "But I think 'truthful' is another word."

The publicity he got from his political activism reached a fever pitch during his months-long, media-blitzed flirtation with running for president that seemed conveniently to dovetail with the Spring 2011 season of his TV show.

That May, he announced he would not run. For some, it was the final scene of nothing more than political theatrics.

"They weren't," Trump says quietly. "I was very seriously considering running. It was a race that the Republicans should have won. I made a mistake in not running, because I think I would have won."

He says he has no designs on this year's race for mayor of New York. But his politicizing continues apace. In his Twitter feed, with 2 million followers, he continues to bash China and rant about Washington. He phones in to Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" each Monday morning to vent his spleen.

"I believe in speaking my mind," he says, "and I don't mind controversy, as you probably noticed. I think sometimes controversy is a good thing, not a bad thing."

Last summer saw the opening in Aberdeen, Scotland, of Trump International Golf Links after a bitter, yearslong fight waged by environmentalists and local residents against government leaders and, of course, Trump.

A man for whom it seems no publicity is bad publicity, Trump insists the controversy helped the project.

"If there wasn't controversy surrounding it, I don't think anybody would even know it exists," he says, laying out the alternative: "I could take an ad: 'Golf course opening.'"

Trump even seems to profit from the harsh attention focused on his hair.

"I get killed on my hair!" he says, with no trace of remorse. But he wants everyone to know, "It's not a wig!" Nor is it an elaborately engineered coif to hide a hairline in retreat, as many Trump-watchers imagine.

To prove it, Trump does a remarkable thing: He lifts the flaxen locks that flop above his forehead to reveal, plain as day, a normal hairline.

"I wash my hair, I comb it, I set it and I spray it," he says. "That's it. I could comb it back and I'd look OK. But I've combed it this way for my whole life. It's become almost a trademark. And I think NBC would be very unhappy if I combed it back, 'cause — you know what? — maybe I wouldn't get as high a rating."

___

Online:

www.nbc.com

___

Frazier Moore is a national television columnist for The Associated Press. He can be reached at fmoore(at)ap.org and at http://www.twitter.com/tvfrazier

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: For the Elderly, Medical Procedures to Avoid

The Choosing Wisely campaign, an initiative by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in partnership with Consumer Reports, kicked off last spring. It is an attempt to alert both doctors and patients to problematic and commonly overused medical tests, procedures and treatments.

It took an elegantly simple approach: By working through professional organizations representing medical specialties, Choosing Wisely asked doctors to identify “Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question.”

The idea was that doctors and their patients could agree on tests and treatments that are supported by evidence, that don’t duplicate what others do, that are “truly necessary” and “free from harm” — and avoid the rest.

Among the 18 new lists released last week are recommendations from geriatricians and palliative care specialists, which may be of particular interest to New Old Age readers. I’ve previously written about a number of these warnings, but it’s helpful to have them in single, strongly worded documents.

The winners — or perhaps, losers?

Both the American Geriatrics Society and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine agreed on one major “don’t.” Topping both lists was an admonition against feeding tubes for people with advanced dementia.

“This is not news; the data’s been out for at least 15 years,” said Sei Lee, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, and a member of the working group that narrowed more than 100 recommendations down to five. Feeding tubes don’t prevent aspiration pneumonia or prolong dementia patients’ lives, the research shows, but they do exacerbate bedsores and cause such distress that people often try to pull them out and wind up in restraints. The doctors recommended hand-feeding dementia patients instead.

The geriatricians’ list goes on to warn against the routine prescribing of antipsychotic medications for dementia patients who become aggressive or disruptive. Though drugs like Haldol, Risperdal and Zyprexa remain widely used, “all of these have been shown to increase the risk of stroke and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Lee said. They should be last resorts, after behavioral interventions.

The other questionable tests and treatments:

No. 3: Prescribing medications to achieve “tight glycemic control” (defined as below 7.5 on the A1c test) in elderly diabetics, who need to control their blood sugar, but not as strictly as younger patients.

No. 4: Turning to sleeping pills as the first choice for older people who suffer from agitation, delirium or insomnia. Xanax, Ativan, Valium, Ambien, Lunesta — “they don’t magically disappear from your body when you wake up in the morning,” Dr. Lee said. They continue to slow reaction times, resulting in falls and auto accidents. Other sleep therapies are preferable.

No. 5: Prescribing antibiotics when tests indicate a urinary tract infection, but the patient has no discomfort or other symptoms. Many older people have bacteria in their bladders but don’t suffer ill effects; repeated use of antibiotics just causes drug resistance, leaving them vulnerable to more dangerous infections. “Treat the patient, not the lab test,” Dr. Lee said.

The palliative care doctors’ Five Things list cautions against delaying palliative care, which can relieve pain and control symptoms even as patients pursue treatments for their diseases.

It also urges discussion about deactivating implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, or ICDs, in patients with irreversible diseases. “Being shocked is like being kicked in the chest by a mule,” said Eric Widera, a palliative care specialist at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center who served on the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine working group. “As someone gets close to the end of life, these ICDs can’t prolong life and they cause a lot of pain.”

Turning the devices off — an option many patients don’t realize they have — requires simple computer reprogramming or a magnet, not the surgery that installed them in the first place.

The palliative care doctors also pointed out that patients suffering pain as cancer spreads to their bones get as much relief, the evidence shows, from a single dose of radiation than from 10 daily doses that require travel to hospitals or treatment centers.

Finally, their list warned that topical gels widely used by hospice staffs to control nausea do not work because they aren’t absorbed through the skin. “We have lots of other ways to give anti-nausea drugs,” Dr. Widera said.

You can read all the Five Things lists (more are coming later this year), and the Consumer Reports publications that do a good job of translating them, on the Choosing Wisely Web site.

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

DealBook: For S.E.C., a Setback in Bid for More Time in Fraud Cases

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a swift and decisive rejection of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s argument that it should operate under a more forgiving statute of limitations in pursuing penalties in fraud cases.

As a result of the decision, the agency will have to find a long-term solution to give itself more time to investigate cases.

In Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the unanimous decision rejecting the S.E.C.’s argument that a federal statute that limits the government’s authority to pursue civil penalties should commence when a fraud is discovered, not when it occurred.

The S.E.C. was hoping that the court would apply what is known as the “discovery rule.” In 2010, the Supreme Court endorsed this rule in a private securities fraud class-action suit, Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, stating “that something different was needed in the case of fraud, where a defendant’s deceptive conduct may prevent a plaintiff from even knowing that he or she has been defrauded.”

The discovery rule is an exception to the protection afforded by a statute of limitations, which puts an endpoint on potential legal liability for conduct. Unlike most cases, when fraud is involved, it may not be apparent to the victims that they were harmed because the primary goal of deceptive conduct is to keep it from being exposed.

In the Gabelli case, the S.E.C. filed fraud charges in 2008 against the mutual fund manager Marc Gabelli and a colleague, Bruce Alpert, saying they had violated the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 for permitting an investor to engage in market timing. Ten years ago, a major scandal erupted when it came to light that some advisers had permitted select investors to buy shares at favorable prices to take advantage of pricing disparities in the securities held by mutual funds.

In its complaint, the S.E.C. sought civil monetary penalties based on market timing that it claimed had taken place from 1999 to 2002, and resulted in the preferred investor purportedly reaping significant profits while ordinary investors suffered large losses. The defendants denied the charges and filed a motion to dismiss the case because it was not brought in time.

A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2462, provides that “an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued.” The provision dates to 1839, and applies to any government agency.

A decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan allowed the case to proceed by applying the discovery rule to a governmental action. Coincidentally, that decision was written by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who despite being an occasional thorn in the S.E.C.’s side, accepted the agency’s argument to avoid a strict application of the five-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court, however, saw things differently. This week, it issued its opinion less than two months after it heard oral argument in the case in January, a clear sign the justices found no merit in the S.E.C.’s contention that the agency should be treated the same as private plaintiffs in trying to get around the statute of limitations.

According to the Supreme Court, victims in securities fraud cases should have a longer period to file a claim – from when the fraud was discovered. “Most of us do not live in a state of constant investigation,” the court wrote. “Absent any reason to think we have been injured, we do not typically spend our days looking for evidence that we were lied to or defrauded.”

Chief Justice Roberts explained that “the S.E.C. as enforcer is a far cry from the defrauded victim the discovery rule evolved to protect.” One of the reasons the agency exists is to detect and penalize violations, with tools that the ordinary investor simply does not have, like the authority to compel testimony and the production of documents. The message is simple. When it’s your job to investigate fraud, you cannot argue that your failure to do so is a justification for not meeting a statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court’s decision puts increased pressure on the S.E.C. to pursue its investigations with greater alacrity and not let them gather dust, which can occur as a result of staff turnover or other pressing issues. The market timing case is a good example of how an investigation might get lost in the shuffle as corporate accounting frauds at large companies like Enron and WorldCom, which also came to light in 2002, strained the S.E.C.’s investigative resources.

There are a couple of options to deal with this issue in the long run, apart from a substantial increase in the agency’s budget – an unlikely prospect in the face of the looming federal budget sequestration deadline.

The S.E.C. can obtain an agreement to stop the statute of limitations, known as tolling, from those it is investigating, something it has done in the past. For example, in its insider trading and securities fraud case against Samuel E. Wyly, his now deceased brother, Charles J. Wyly Jr., and two other defendants, the S.E.C. got an agreement that let it pursue claims beyond the normal five-year limitations period.

A permanent solution would be to seek legislation from Congress that would give the S.E.C. a longer window to complete its investigations. The statute of limitations is not a constitutional protection, so Congress can amend it as it sees fit, which it has done in other areas involving fraud.

The limitations period for banking crimes, for example, was extended to 10 years during the savings and loan crisis because of the crush of cases that made it difficult to finish investigations in the five-year window to initiate criminal prosecutions. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 added mail and wire fraud affecting a financial institution to the list of crimes that get the benefit of the 10-year limitations period, again because of fear that cases would be lost because of the number of investigations taking place after the financial crisis.

The issue of the statute of limitations may even come up at the confirmation hearings of Mary Jo White, who has been nominated to be chairwoman of the S.E.C. That could be an early indicator of whether she would be willing to push for relief from the effect of the Gabelli opinion to help out the enforcement division.

In the short run, the Supreme Court’s decision will cause defendants in government enforcement actions to examine whether they might be able to take advantage of the five-year limitations period. Given how slowly the government has been known to move on occasion, it may be that some cases will fall by the wayside because of the Gabelli decision.

---

Read More..

Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.”

The court’s more liberal members, citing data and history, said Congress remained entitled to make the judgment that the provision was still needed in the covered jurisdictions.

“It’s an old disease,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said of efforts to thwart minority voting. “It’s gotten a lot better. A lot better. But it’s still there.”

Four of the nine-member court’s five more conservative members asked largely skeptical questions about the law. The fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not ask a question, as is typical.

The law, a landmark achievement of the civil rights era was challenged by Shelby County, Ala., which said that the requirement had outlived its usefulness and that it imposed an unwarranted badge of shame on the affected jurisdictions.

The county’s lawyer, Bert W. Rein, said that the “problem to which the Voting Rights Act was addressed is solved.”

In reauthorizing the provision for 25 years in 2006, Congress did nothing to change the criteria for inclusion under the provision, relying instead on a formula based on historic practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. Much of the argument concerned that coverage formula.

Should the court strike down the coverage formula, Congress would be free to take a fresh look at what jurisdictions should be covered. But making distinctions among the states based on new criteria may not be politically feasible.

Four years ago, the court signaled that the law may need revision to withstand constitutional scrutiny, hinting that Congress might want to take a fresh look at the places subject to the preclearance provision, called Section 5. Congress failed to act.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said Congress had made a considered and cautious decision in extending the act.

Debo P. Adegbile, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that “our right to vote is what the United States Constitution is about.”

Section 5, originally set to expire five years after the law was enacted, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1966 as a rational response to the often flagrantly lawless conduct of some Southern officials then.

Congress repeatedly extended the requirement: for 5 years in 1970, 7 years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

But it made no changes to the list of jurisdictions covered by Section 5, relying instead on a formula based on historical practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. It applies to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states.

Last May, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the law. Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “the extraordinary federalism costs imposed by Section 5 raise substantial constitutional concerns,” and he added that the record compiled by Congress to justify the law’s renewal was “by no means unambiguous.”

Read More..

Van Cliburn, American classical pianist, dies

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — Van Cliburn, the internationally celebrated pianist whose triumph at a 1958 Moscow competition helped thaw the Cold War and launched a spectacular career that made him the rare classical musician to enjoy rock-star status, died Wednesday after a fight with bone cancer. He was 78.

Cliburn died at his home in Fort Worth surrounded by loved ones, said his publicist and longtime friend Mary Lou Falcone.

"Van Cliburn was an international legend for over five decades, a great humanitarian and a brilliant musician whose light will continue to shine through his extraordinary legacy," Falcone said in a statement. "He will be missed by all who knew and admired him, and by countless people he never met."

Cliburn made what would be his last public appearance in September at the 50th anniversary of the prestigious piano competition named for him. Speaking to the audience in Fort Worth, he saluted the many past contestants, the orchestra and the city. "Never forget: I love you all from the bottom of my heart, forever," he said to a roaring standing ovation.

Cliburn skyrocketed to fame when he won the first International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow at age 23 in 1958, six months after the Soviets' launch of Sputnik embarrassed the U.S. and propelled the world into the space age. He triumphantly returned to a New York City ticker tape parade — the first ever for a classical musician — and a Time magazine cover proclaimed him "The Texan Who Conquered Russia."

But the win also proved the power of the arts, bringing unity in the midst of strong rivalry. Despite the tension between the nations, Cliburn became a hero to music-loving Soviets who clamored to see him perform and Premier Nikita Khrushchev reportedly gave the go-ahead for the judges to honor a foreigner: "Is Cliburn the best? Then give him first prize."

In the years that followed, Cliburn's popularity soared, and the young man from the small east Texas town of Kilgore sold out concerts, caused riots when spotted in public and even prompted an Elvis Presley fan club to change its name to his. His recording of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1 with Russian conductor Kirill Kondrashin became the first classical album to reach platinum status.

Time magazine's 1958 cover story quoted a friend as saying Cliburn could become "the first man in history to be a Horowitz, Liberace and Presley all rolled into one."

Cliburn performed for royalty, heads of state in Europe, Asia and South America, and for every U.S. president since Harry Truman.

"Since we know that classical music is timeless and everlasting, it is precisely the eternal verities inherent in classical music that remain a spiritual beacon for people all over the world," Cliburn once said.

But he also used his skill and fame to help other young musicians through the Van Cliburn International Music Competition.

Created by a group of Fort Worth teachers and citizens in 1962, the competition, held every four years, remains a pre-eminent showcase for the world's top pianists. An amateur contest was added in 1999.

"It is a forum for young artists to celebrate the great works of the piano literature and an opportunity to expose their talents to a wide-ranging international audience," Cliburn said during the 10th competition in 1997. The 14th competition is to be held in May and June.

President George W. Bush presented Cliburn with the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation's highest civilian honor — in 2003. In 2004, he received the Order of Friendship of the Russian Federation from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I still have lots of friends in Russia," Cliburn said at the time. "It's always a great pleasure to talk to older people in Russia, to hear their anecdotes."

After the death of his father in 1974, Cliburn announced he would soon retire to spend more time with his ailing mother. He stopped touring in 1978.

He told The New York Times in 2008 that among other things, touring robbed him of the chance to enjoy opera and other musical performances. "I said to myself, 'Life is too short.' I was missing so much," he said. After winning the competition, he added, "it was thrilling to be wanted. But it was pressure too."

Cliburn emerged from his sabbatical in 1987, when he played at a state dinner at the White House during the historic visit to Washington of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev leapt from his seat to give the pianist a bear-hug and kisses on the cheeks.

The 13th Cliburn competition, held in 2009, made history when a blind pianist from Japan, Nobuyuki Tsujii, and a teenager from China, Haochen Zhang, both won gold medals. They were the first winners from any Asian country, and Tsujii was the first blind pianist to win. And it was only the second time there were dual first place winners.

Cliburn was born Harvey Lavan Cliburn Jr. on July 12, 1934, in Shreveport, La., the son of oilman Harvey Cliburn Sr. and Rildia Bee O'Bryan Cliburn. At age 3, he began studying piano with his mother, herself an accomplished pianist who had studied with a pupil of the great 19th century Hungarian pianist Franz Liszt.

The family moved back to Kilgore, Texas, within a few years of his birth.

Cliburn won his first Texas competition when he was 12, and two years later he played in Carnegie Hall as the winner of the National Music Festival Award.

At 17, Cliburn attended the Juilliard School in New York, where fellow students marveled at his marathon practice sessions that stretched until 3 a.m. He studied under the famed Russian-born pianist Rosina Lhevinne.

Between 1952 and 1958, he won all but one competition he entered, including the G.B. Dealey Award from the Dallas Symphony, the Kosciusko Foundation Chopin Scholarship and the prestigious Leventritt. By age 20, he had played with the New York Philharmonic and the symphonies of most major cities.

Cliburn's career seemed ready to take off until his name came up for the draft. Cliburn had to cancel all shows but was eventually excused from duty due to chronic nosebleeds.

Over the next few years, Cliburn's international popularity continued as he recorded pieces ranging from Mozart to a concerto by American Edward McDowell. Still, having been trained by arguably the best Russian teachers in the world, Cliburn's heart was Russian, with the Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff concertos.

After 1990, Cliburn toured Japan numerous times and performed throughout the United States. He was in the midst of a 16-city U.S. tour in 1994 when his mother died at age 97.

Cliburn made his home in Fort Worth, where in 1998 he appeared at the opening of the Nancy Lee and Perry R. Bass Performance Hall, both in recital and as soloist with the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra. He endowed scholarships at many schools, including Juilliard, which gave him an honorary doctorate, and the Moscow and Leningrad Conservatories.

In December 2001, Cliburn was presented with the prestigious Kennedy Center Honors Medallion at the televised tribute held in Washington.

Until only recently, Cliburn practiced daily and performed limited engagements.

___

Online:

Van Cliburn Foundation: http://www.cliburn.org

Read More..

Personal Health: Too Many Pills in Pregnancy

The thalidomide disaster of the early 1960s left thousands of babies with deformed limbs because their mothers innocently took a sleeping pill thought to be safe during pregnancy,

In its well-publicized wake, countless pregnant women avoided all medications, fearing that any drug they took could jeopardize their babies’ development.

I was terrified in December 1968 when, during the first weeks of my pregnancy, I developed double pneumonia and was treated with antibiotics and codeine. Before swallowing a single dose, I called my obstetrician, who told me to take what was prescribed, “reassuring” me that if I died of pneumonia I wouldn’t have a baby at all.

In the decades that followed, pregnancy-related hazards were linked to many medicinal substances: prescription and over-the-counter drugs and herbal remedies, as well as abused drugs and even some vitamins.

Now, however, the latest findings about drug use during pregnancy have ignited new concerns among experts who monitor the effects of medications on the developing fetus and pregnancy itself.

During the last 30 years, use of prescription drugs during the first trimester of pregnancy, when fetal organs are forming, has grown by more than 60 percent.

About 90 percent of pregnant women take at least one medication, and 70 percent take at least one prescription drug, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the late 1970s, the proportion of pregnant women taking four or more medications has more than doubled.

Nearly one woman in 10 takes an herbal remedy during the first trimester.

A growing number of pregnant women, naïvely assuming safety, self-medicate with over-the-counter drugs that were once sold only by prescription.

While many commonly taken medications are considered safe for unborn babies, the Food and Drug Administration estimates that 10 percent or more of birth defects result from medications taken during pregnancy. “We seem to have forgotten as a society that drugs pose risks,” Dr. Allen A. Mitchell, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Boston University Schools of Public Health and Medicine, said in an interview. “Many over-the-counter drugs were grandfathered in with no studies of their possible effects during pregnancy.”

Medical progress has contributed to the rising use of medications during pregnancy, Dr. Mitchell said. Various conditions, like depression, are now recognized as diseases that warrant treatment; drugs have been developed to treat conditions for which no treatment was previously available, and some conditions, like Type 2 diabetes and hypertension, have become more prevalent.

Misled by the Web

Now a new concern has surfaced: Bypassing their doctors, more and more women are using the Internet to determine whether the medication they are taking or are about to take is safe for an unborn baby.

A study, published online last month in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, of so-called “safe lists for medications in pregnancy” found at 25 Web sites revealed glaring inconsistencies and sometimes false reassurances or alarms based on “inadequate evidence.”

The report was prepared by Cheryl S. Broussard of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with co-authors from Emory, Georgia State University, the University of British Columbia and the Food and Drug Administration.

“Among medications approved for use in the U.S.A. from 2000 to 2010, over 79% had no published human data on which to assess teratogenic risk (potential to cause birth defects), and 98% had insufficient published data to characterize such risk,” the authors wrote.

But that did not stop the 25 Web sites from characterizing 245 medications as “safe” for use by pregnant women, which “might encourage use of medications during pregnancy even when they are not necessary,” the authors suggested.

Furthermore, the information found online was sometimes contradictory. “Twenty-two of the products listed as safe by one or more sites were stated not to be safe by one or more of the other sites,” the study found.

The question of timing was often ignored. A drug that could interfere with fetal organ development might be safe to take later in pregnancy. Or one (for example, ibuprofen) that is safe early in pregnancy could become a hazard later if it raises the risk of excessive bleeding or premature delivery.

Fewer than half the sites advised taking medication only when necessary, and only 13 sites encouraged pregnant women to consult their doctors before stopping or starting a medication.

Doctors, too, are often poorly informed about pregnancy-related hazards of various medications, the authors noted. One woman I know was advised to wean off an antidepressant before she became pregnant, but another was told to continue taking the same drug throughout her pregnancy.

“In many instances the best bet is for mom to stay on her medication,” said Dr. Siobhan M. Dolan, an obstetrician and geneticist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. She said that if a woman is depressed during pregnancy, her risk of postpartum depression is greater and she may have difficulty bonding with her baby.

Dr. Dolan, who is author, with Alice Lesch Kelly, of the March of Dimes’ newest book, “Healthy Mom Healthy Baby,” emphasized the importance of weighing benefits and risks in deciding whether to take medication during pregnancy and which drugs to take.

“In anticipation of pregnancy, a woman taking more than one drug to treat her condition should try to get down to a single agent,” Dr. Dolan said in an interview. “Of the various medications available to treat a condition, is there a best choice — one least likely to cause a problem for either the baby or the mother?”

She cautioned against sharing medications prescribed for someone else and assuming that a remedy labeled “natural” or “herbal” is safe. Virtually none have been tested for safety in pregnancy.

Among medications a woman should be certain to avoid, in some cases starting three months before becoming pregnant, are isotretinoin (Accutane and others) for acne; valproic acid for seizure disorders; lithium for bipolar disorder; tetracycline for infections, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists for hypertension, Dr. Dolan said.

“Many medications that are not recommended during pregnancy can be replaced with low-risk alternatives,” she wrote.

Dr. Broussard, who did the “safe lists” study, said in an interview, “We’ve heard about women seeing medications on these lists and deciding on their own that it’s O.K. to take them. “Women who are pregnant or even thinking about getting pregnant should talk directly to their doctors before taking anything. They should be sure they’re taking only what’s necessary for their health condition.”

A reliable online resource for both women and their doctors, Dr. Mitchell said, are fact sheets prepared by OTIS, the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, which are continually updated as new facts become available: http://www.otispregnancy.org.

Read More..

DealBook: Obama’s Nominee for S.E.C. Tries to Allay Skepticism

Mary Jo White’s path to the Securities and Exchange Commission has reached a crucial juncture: the Congressional charm campaign.

Lawmakers are scrutinizing Ms. White ahead of her Senate confirmation hearing, raising questions about the former prosecutor’s lack of regulatory experience and the challenge of policing Wall Street firms she recently defended in private practice. But Ms. White is seeking to quell concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

She recently scheduled meetings with Senate Banking Committee members, who must clear her nomination, and answered a 20-page boilerplate questionnaire detailing her qualifications, according to a copy provided to The New York Times. The document sheds new light on her list of Wall Street clients, including little-known work performed for HSBC’s former chief executive. It also describes her ties to New York Democratic causes and laurels she earned both as a defense lawyer and federal prosecutor.

The questionnaire, created by the banking committee, focused significant attention on her movement through the revolving door between government service and private practice, a concern that has loomed since President Obama nominated Ms. White in January.

“As a government official, I believe I have an established track record and the reputation of being tough, but fair,” she said in the document.

Ms. White also offered a previously undisclosed concession, vowing “as far as can be foreseen,” never to return to Debevoise & Plimpton, where she had built a lucrative legal practice. To avert potential conflicts stemming from her work on behalf of Wall Street giants, Ms. White had already agreed to recuse herself for one year from most matters that involve former clients.

While Ms. White’s nomination is expected to sail through the committee before receiving full Senate approval, four Congressional officials who spoke anonymously warned that some Democrats have lingering reservations.

The Democrats note that her husband, John W. White, is co-chairman of the corporate governance practice at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where he represents many of the companies that the S.E.C. regulates. They also question whether Ms. White’s recusals, even if well-intentioned, could cripple her ability to run the agency.

In a meeting on Tuesday with Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, Ms. White did little to alleviate the fears.

“Senator Brown respects Ms. White’s credentials and experience, but is concerned with Washington’s long-held bias toward Wall Street,” his spokeswoman, Meghan Dubyak, said in a statement. “He pushed Ms. White,” to explain “whether her previous employment or her spouse’s current employment could cause her to recuse herself from key business facing the S.E.C.” The agency has already fallen behind in writing dozens of new rules for Wall Street.

Ms. White’s supporters counter that, before the White House announced the appointment, the Office of Government Ethics vetted her disclosures. The nonpartisan officials concluded that, even with her recusals, Ms. White could effectively run the agency.

Her supporters also trumpet her long tenure as a tenacious prosecutor. During stints as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn and as the first woman United States attorney in Manhattan, she helped oversee the prosecution of the crime figure John Gotti and directed the case against those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The cases won her praise from several lawmakers.

Ms. White still has time to win over remaining skeptics. Her confirmation hearing is not expected until the week of March 11, Congressional officials briefed on the matter said.

Until then, Ms. White is blitzing through the halls of Congress, a routine practice for nominees. She began her charm offensive at the top of the banking committee’s roster, visiting this month with the Democratic chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, of South Dakota. A Congressional official briefed on the matter said Ms. White performed well at the gathering, and no major issues arose.

In the next round of meetings, she will face off with a more liberal arm of the committee known to scrutinize nominees. After meeting Mr. Brown, Ms. White is scheduled to see Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon. She also will meet Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is an outspoken critic of Wall Street, Ms. Warren’s office confirmed on Tuesday.

Even if Ms. White fails to satisfy lawmakers’ concerns, the meetings are an important step in clearing the way for her appointment.

“Senators will have a chance to size Mary Jo up, and I believe will come away with a great sense of comfort that she’s a candidate of true quality,” said Harvey Pitt, who passed through the confirmation process in 2001 to lead the S.E.C.

He noted that additional disclosures could bolster her candidacy. “I do think she will need to provide a level of comfort to the committee that she is aware of the issue, has a definitive plan for navigating through the potential conflict issues, and will be completely open about when she has a potential recusal issue, and how she has handled it,” he said.

Ms. White, a political independent, assured lawmakers in her questionnaire that she was “completely independent of political or personal influences.” She did disclose, however, $13,000 in campaign donations to Democratic candidates. She also served on the campaign committee of a Democrat who had run for New York attorney general.

Her ties to Debevoise — and its clients — are more significant; she represented JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Michael Geoghegan, the former head of HSBC.

Ms. White, 65, said this month said that she would retire from Debevoise after taking over the S.E.C. and would forgo the firm’s typical retirement perks: office space and a free BlackBerry. She also will sever financial ties to the firm during her term at the S.E.C., taking an upfront lump-sum retirement payment rather than collecting a monthly installment of $42,500.

Her husband has also offered concessions. He agreed to convert his partnership at Cravath, Swaine & Moore from equity to nonequity status and promised not to “communicate directly” with the S.E.C. about rule-making. Ms. White will not participate in a matter with a direct effect on his compensation.

In line with a standard move for federal appointees, Ms. White further agreed to recuse herself for one year from voting on enforcement cases involving Debevoise clients. There are limitations to the policy, though, in case it is “in the public interest” and a “reasonable” person would not object.

Some lawmakers dismiss questions about her potential conflicts, but still question her mastery of regulatory minutiae. While Ms. White is a skilled litigator, she lacks experience in financial rule-writing, unlike a predecessor, Mary Schapiro, a lifelong regulator who ran the S.E.C. for nearly four years.

In her questionnaire, Ms. White highlighted her role as a director of the Nasdaq exchange and other experiences that she said gave her “a firm grounding” in securities laws.

She also, inadvertently, drew a connection to Ms. Schapiro. Like Ms. Schapiro, Ms. White is an animal lover, currently serving as a board member of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

She agreed to step down from the board once she is sworn in at the S.E.C.

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/27/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Nominee For S.E.C. Tries to Allay Skepticism.

Read More..

Scientist at Work Blog: Getting to the Bottom of It All

Michael Becker, a doctoral student at McGill University, was a scientific diver on an expedition to Lake Untersee in Antarctica.

If you’re going where there’s no air to breathe, you better be organized.

Any kind of underwater diving involves process for that very reason. There’s the early-morning wake-up, the weather check, the gear check (masks, fins, regulators … check). And then there’s the dive site approach – whether you’re walking in from the shore or taking a boat to some far forgotten reef.

Diving Lake Untersee is just like that – except in Antarctica we get to our dive site by snowmobile.  And Untersee ratchets up the workload because it’s remote, technical and cold.

To even get into the lake is a feat of accomplishment and a trick of clever engineering. Just the thought of trying to chip a dive hole through 10-foot thick lake ice could give you tendinitis long before you get your feet wet.

During the early days of Antarctic diving in the late-1970s, the expedition leader Dale Andersen and a few clever people working in the Dry Valley region of Antarctica came up with an ingenious way of getting through the ice. They modified an industrial-strength steam cleaner to circulate boiling hot liquid through a closed-circuit piece of copper tubing. All a would-be diver had to do was place the tubing inside a small hole drilled in the ice and wait for magic to happen as the hole slowly formed over two days.

But even when the hole is melted there’s still a lot to do before getting into the water.

Dive Days

We start with a hearty breakfast of dehydrated granola — a meal that I hope to never see again. After breakfast, the diver gets ready by sorting the gear and putting on the dry suit while the first tender drives out by snowmobile to chip out any refrozen ice from the dive hole.

The second snowmobile carries the other dive tender and the diver (already in their dry suit) to the hole. The diver sits on the ice platform and is dressed with weights, tank, gloves, and is tied in to the all-important safety line.

This line is the life tether. It is fed out and taken in as needed. That way the surface assistants have a sense of how far away the diver is, and the diver knows where to return. In the early days, sequences of line pulls would be used to communicate simple commands like an early Morse code for dive messages. Nowadays, the dive line connects a surface communication box to the diver’s facemask. Diver and tender are easily able to grumble back and forth to each other with all the benefits of modern technology.

Once the diver’s mask is on they slide in, do the dive, come back to the hole and are yanked out. If the diver still has a pulse there is applause all around and we go back to celebrate with a dinner of dehydrated food.

Safety is paramount here and there is no margin of error. The nearest recompression chamber for a dive injury is 2,000 miles away in Cape Town. There are no helicopters for rescue and any serious injury or accident could mean death.

We follow all this protocol and process in pursuit of one thing – studying microbial communities locked away from human history.

The Science Down There

Dale and I have done a number of dives to collect data and samples on the conical stromatolites found at the bottom of Lake Untersee.  Dale has surfaced several times with sediment cores of the lake’s bottom. These cores tell us about the history of the lake and its resident organisms. By looking at cross-sections of the cores, we can see that the microbial communities grow over the years in layers known as laminations. These laminae show us a chronosequence of events, alternating between mineral deposition and organic layer growth. These mineral deposits must come from somewhere as the lake surface is covered in ice. It’s thought that the occasional influx of silt from nearby glaciers provides the sediment that the cyanobacteria then recolonize.

But there’s more than just grabbing a sample and returning to the surface – the lake environment needs to be described in precise detail.

These cyanobacteria are photosynthetic and dependent on light to create their energy. One of my dives was spent swimming transects back and forth directly underneath the 10-foot ice ceiling holding a light meter. This gives us an idea of the amount of energy that is available for photosynthesis beneath the lake. The ice cover isn’t completely uniform; there are dark areas intermingled with sections of bright windows. Also, since light drops off with depth, not all life within the lake is receiving the same amount of energy.

It’s not just these cyanobacterial mats that thrive in Lake Untersee.

There is a diverse world of bacteria and viruses that inhabit their own unique sections of the water column all the way from the lake surface to over 500 feet below. These areas are far beyond our range capacity as scientific divers, and so we must rely on a different technique to sample these distant creatures.

Our two Russian scientists, Vladimir Akimov and Valery Galchenko from the Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology, are microbiologists that specialize in microbial life in extreme environments. Their work has taken them from remote regions of Yakutia, Russia, studying heat-loving extremophiles, to the even more remote Lake Untersee to study the isolated bacteria inhabiting this lake.

Different communities of bacteria thrive according to the changing abiotic conditions, as you get deeper in the lake’s water column.  These environments are mapped out by lowering sensors to measure conductivity, temperature, and depth, or CTD, from the lake’s surface down to around 330 feet – our maximum sample depth.

Vladimir and Valery then lower their sampler to different points within the water column and capture about a gallon of water. These samples are brought back to camp, and the two spend hour after waking hour filtering the water to concentrate samples of both bacteria and viruses. There’s no human health concern with these viruses – they are specific to the bacteria in the lake, and must exist in some sort of equilibrium with the lake life.

One of the areas that Vladimir and Valery are particularly interested is a section of the lake at 256 feet. At this depth, the lake chemistry changes quite a bit – it becomes anoxic, meaning without oxygen. The organisms that thrive in this section have no need for oxygen in their metabolic processes. They use sulfur instead.

From a practical perspective, that means the samples reek. Rich in hydrogen sulfide, they smell like sour, rotten eggs. But by studying this transition from the clear, oxygen-rich water above to the dark, oxygen-poor water below we can get a sense of the two different worlds experienced by bacteria within the same lake.

What we bring up from the depths of Lake Untersee is only the beginning of a long scientific process. All these samples must be carried back to the civilized world, processed and analyzed over the next several months. Only then we will be able to more fully understand the ecosystem of Lake Untersee, and only then will we fully understand the significance of what we’re seeing.

And that’s what makes all this time, effort, and risk worth it. Diving Untersee has been an incredible experience, but without the questions driving us forward, it would be a lot to gamble for a good view.

Follow Michael on Twitter: @Michael__Becker or on his blog, “The Dry Valleys.”

Read More..

Dorothy Hamill and Andy Dick among 'Dancing' stars

NEW YORK (AP) — A gold-medal figure skater, a country music legend and a kooky comedian are stepping their way onto "Dancing With the Stars."

ABC says Dorothy Hamill, Wynona Judd and Andy Dick are among 11 contenders for the mirrored ball on the new season of the celebrity dance competition.

Other famous faces in the show's 16th edition include standup comic and actor D.L. Hughley, Baltimore Ravens football player Jacoby Jones and former "American Idol" contestant Kellie Pickler.

Also on hand will be former welterweight boxing champ Victor Ortiz, "General Hospital" star Ingo Rademacher, actress-singer Zendaya Coleman and Lisa Vanderpump from "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," as well as Olympic gold-medal gymnast Aly Raisman.

The new "Dancing With the Stars" season kicks off on ABC with a two-hour premiere on March 18.

Read More..