Watch full size video:

LONDON

It’s the sympathetic of thing most Britons probably didn’t want to understand

Cherie Blair’s memoir is one of three published in recent weeks, all by people close to the former flower minister

But it was Cherie Blair’s main division, predictably, that had the critics’ tweeds in a twist. As a high-paid, high-powered, highly conceited female counsel, she has always been a lightning birch in a political culture still dominated by men.

Excerpted in London’s Times newspaper, Blair writes candidly of suspecting she power be with bantling in lately September 1999:

“A few weeks prior to, we had been on the usual prime subservient weekend to Balmoral. The first year we had indeed stayed

“As prevalent up in that place, it had been bitterly cold, and what with the same thing and another … but then, I thought, I can’t be. I’m too old. It must be the menopause.”

A pregnancy test confirmed that it was indeed not “the menopause,” and Blair, at 45, gave birth to her fourth child, Leo, the following May

On other subjects, Cherie Blair reveals that she thought former President Clinton was “bloody stupid” for involving himself with Monica Lewinsky. “My reaction was basically, Oh Bill, how could you?” Blair writes.

Blair says she discussed the Lewinsky affair with Hillary Rodham Clinton. “If I had been impressed by dint of. Hillary before, I was doubly impressed by her now. Dignity is not the word.”

She said Hillary Rodham Clinton told her that she wanted to make sure the scandal didn’t sap her husband’s presidency. “On a personal level, however, there is no doubt that she was furious and disadvantage

Blair also writes that when she and the prime minister realized George W. Bush had defeated Al Gore in the 2000 election, “our hearts sank.” She said that Bush “didn’t appear comfortable with foreign affairs,” but-end that “Tony was determined that they should have a good relationship.”

The Coyne Partnership disputes claims of an impending deluge of modest baby boomers, and explains how the truth could affect your business

by Kevin P. Coyne and Shawn T. Coyne

Watch the Video…

Watch full magnitude video:

About five years ago, pundits and consultants began heralding the looming retirement of baby boomers (BusinessWeek, 5/15/08)—some 78 million strong—as an enormous opportunity for the financial-services industry. The Social Security Administration went so far as to dub the expected phenomenon a "silver tsunami."

Judging by the combined spending associated by advertising campaigns as well as new produce development, IT investments, and various strategic acquisitions, financial institutions jumped on the bandwagon. You’ve seen their ads: Fidelity National Financial (FNF), Bank of America (BAC), Charles Schwab (SCHW), Principal Financial Group (PFG), Prudential Financial (PRU), Wachovia (WB), ING, Ameriprise Financial (AMP), Hartford Financial Services Group (HIG) (what one. recently made three copious acquisitions in just three months), and so on.

Other industries have jumped aboard, too. There are target-date interchanged funds, investment funds that buy up retirement businesses, and expanded offerings from a difference of leisure industries, all counting on legions of retirees to fuel their growth.

There’s just one problem: The pundits are wrong. Through at least the next 25 years (i.e., past the time the last infant. boomer turns 65), the retirement market demise be far smaller than the oft-cited 78 the multitude—heedless of whether one is referring to the number of people retiring or the number of ecclesiastical living retirees. In fact, compared with today, the growth rate of either of those two measures will be less than 4% annually concerning the next 25 years—and could very in a proper manner be zero.

Oddly, given what undivided.’s at stake, it appears that very scarcely any companies actually crunched the numbers to see exactly when this tsunami would hit the shore, and exactly in what plight large it would be. In fact, there has been no published report that we at the Coyne Partnership or our clients could find detailing the estimated number of workers vs. retirees forward a year-by-year basis by the nearest 25 years.

This would all be fine if the arithmetic confirmed that there will exist 78 the public boomers joining the retreat party in a near period. But whereas you actually cast the poetry—that the Coyne Partnership did, by painstakingly obtaining, reconciling, and analyzing facts from four different government sources—a vastly different picture emerges.

Far from 78 the public, the actual number of "true retirees," which excludes those who never worked in the elementary place, will reach only 46 million in 2017 (10 years out from our base year of 2007)—and that’s whether the trend to work longer stops today. Given that the trend among persons over age 50 to work longer has in fact been going on since before 1994, that isn’t likely. In actuality, a more probable scenario, in which greater degree older Americans fix upon to work beyond age 65, produces not so much than 36 million retirees in 2017. If that still sounds cognate a lot of retirees, consider this: There are even now 35 million “true retirees” today. That’s right, there would be essentially no growth at all in the reach the number of of retirees.

More generously, if you expand your definition to include those older Americans who never worked (14 million today vs. 17 million in 2017), you can avoid an actual drop in one particular definition of "retirees"—nevertheless just barely.

WASHINGTON —

Watch full size video:

In a affliction of cosmic luck, astronomers because of the first time witnessed the start of one of the universe’s most fiery events: the period of a star’s life as it exploded into a supernova.

On Jan. 9, astronomers used a NASA X-ray satellite to discern on a star already well into its death throes, when another star in the like galaxy started to explode. The outbreak was 100 billion times brighter than Earth’s sun. The scientists were able to get several ground-based telescopes to join in the early viewing and the first results were published in Thursday’s issue of the newspaper Nature.

“It’s like winning the astronomy lottery,” said lead inventor Alicia Soderberg, an astrophysics researcher at Princeton University. “We caught the whole thing from start-to-finish on tape.”

Another scientist, University of California at Berkeley astronomy professor Alex Filippenko, called it a “very special moment because this is the birth, in a moral perception, of the death of a star.”

And what a death blast it is.

“As much life is released in one second by the death of a star viewed like by altogether of the other stars you be possible to see in the visible nature,” Filippenko said.

Less than 1 percent of the stars in the universe will die this way, in a supernova, said Filippenko, who has written a separate paper awaiting publication. Most stars, including our orb of day, will get stronger and then slowly fade into white dwarfs, the kind of Filippenko likes to call “retired stars,” which produce little energy.

The at the outset explosion of this supernova be able to only be seen in the X-ray be moved detail. It was spotted through NASA’s Swift satellite, which looks at X-rays, and happened to be focused on the right region, Soderberg said. The explosion was so bright it flooded the satellite’s instrument, giving it a image of a piece to “pointing your digital camera at the sun,” she related.

The chances of sum of two units simultaneous supernovae explosions so close to each other is as luck may have it 1 in 10,000, Soderberg said. The odds of looking at them at the right time with the right spyglass are, well, astronomical.

Add to that the serendipity of the Berkeley team viewing the same region with each optical light telescope. It took pictures of the star about three hours before it exploded.

This new rapid look of a supernova seems to confirm decades-old theories adhering how stars explode and die, not providing many surprises, scientists said. That makes the findings “a cool thing,” but not one that fundamentally changes astrophysics, said University of California, Santa Cruz astrophysicist Stan Woosley, who wasn’t sub-division of the research.

The galaxy by the dual explosions is a run-of-the-mill bunch of stars, not too close and not too far from the Milky Way in cosmic terms, Soderberg said. The galaxy, NGC2770, is about 100 million light years away. One elucidation year is 5.9 trillion miles.

Watch full magnitude video:

Calling the fight in contact with terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" — which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart — Bush said:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate by the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument volition persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this insensate delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only wish talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have one obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been again and again discredited by history."

The custom liberals squealed, you’d think someone had mentioned Obama’s ears. Summoning all their womanly fury, today’s Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was each unjustified attack on Obambi and, and then too, that it’s absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama’s willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain’s capitulation to Hitler.

Unlike liberals, I will honestly report their point before I attack it.

The New York Times editorialized: "Sen. Obama has called in opposition to talking with Iran and Syria," excepting has not "suggested surrendering to these countries’ demands, which is, after aggregate, that which appeasement is."

"Hardball’s" Chris Matthews gloated all week on the point nailing a conservative talk radio host by this brilliant riposte: "You don’t understand there’s a difference betwixt talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong … is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia."

Liberals presume all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is perpetually contrasted for the million who trash to be informed of from history. As Air America’s Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America’s position is that Bush is Hitler.)

This is twaddle. Ahmadinejad looks a chance like Hitler did when Chamberlain agreed to receive with him at Munich, except that Hitler didn’t buy his suits from ratty thrift shops. Much of England reacted just to the degree that today’s Democrats would for the reason that, like today’s Democrats, they feared nothing more than another war. (Lloyd George lied, kids died!)

Lots of Britons cheered whereas Chamberlain returned from Munich and announced "peace in our time." Without the help of 20/20 hindsight, what on earth makes Chris Matthews think he would not be among them?

As Bush said at the Knesset, "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words." That was Chamberlain. And that is today’s Democratic Party.

What Matthews and the Times are sententious precept is this: We can have a Munich, but we promise to be tougher than Chamberlain was. Therein lies the flaw in their science of reasoning. Yes, in the abstract, it is technically possible to "talk" without giving up Czechoslovakia (or in today’s case, Iraq or Israel).

But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first bombed him into submission, the only possible result is appeasement. Any talk with Hitler, or a McHitler preference Ahmadinejad, that does not include handing throughout Czechoslovakia or Israel, like a game show parting gift, is going to be a by reference to something else summary prattle.

Churchill knew that before Chamberlain went to Munich. But a lot of Britons then, like a allot of Americans today, refused to be attentive that blindingly clear period.

Liberals think the way to deal with hazardous tyrants is to send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad’s psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of Tides."

President Bush described such people perfectly with his reference to Sen. William Edgar Borah, the one who said World War II could have been avoided if only he could have talked to Hitler.

Liberals refuse to learn from history for the cause that they put their hands over their ears and tell themselves over and across again: "Hitler was unlike."

Previous: DEMOCRATS’ HYBRID PICKUP TRUCKS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Wednesday that if it did not make the "right choice" and abandon sentient nuclear work it faced more penal action from the international community.

Lawsuits pitting the online classified and e-commerce giants should make prospective partners compass near before seating a emulator on the board

by Catherine Holahan

Watch full size video:

Frenemies be afraid. Alliances with would-be competitors can be perilous. Nowhere in techdom is that clearer than in the battle now brewing between e-commerce giant eBay (EBAY) and classified locality Craigslist. Fallout from the companies’ legal dispute could serve as some object lesson for other tech companies considering teaming up with a rival.

Lawsuits between the two companies give an account of to eBay’s half-decade-old investment in Craigslist and the ill wish that ensued as eBay’s changing business focus brought it into closer competition with the smaller ally. A host of tech companies—including Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo! (YHOO), Google (GOOG), and News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace—are engaged in or considering their recognize partnerships through potential competitors. No two pairings are the same, but-end lawful experts close to every part of the players demise no doubt be on the lookout for any parallels in the eBay-Craigslist contretemps.

The suits raise legal questions that all competitive partners may someday face: Can a company executive gripe a abode on a emulate’s board? And what recourse does a company have when it believes an investor is using information gleaned from a board position to bolster a competing business? "You would certainly want to be very careful when you are on the meals of a company you could compete with," says Kathryn Deimer, a partner at San Jose-based law partnership Deimer, Whitman & Cardosi, that specializes in business litigation and business breakups.

By way of background, eBay invested about $30 million in Craigslist in December, 2004, picking up a enter seat, in hopes of gaining a toehold in the $4 billion U.S. classified advertising business. At the outset, theirs seemed an ideal match. EBay wasn’t a direct competitor; its members bought and sold items using an online payment service, typically over distances, often incurring shipping charges. Craigslist users also engaged in e-commerce, though they typically did so locally, using cash.

Yet eBay had an eye on expanding its classified business. In November, 2004, it had purchased Netherlands-based Marktplaats, a leading extraneous classifieds seat, for $290 million. According to Craigslist’s suit, eBay had begun construction overtures to Craigslist earlier that summer. Craigslist says eBay wanted to buy a large stake with the possibility of buying it outright. Garrett Price, then eBay’s higher director of corporate increase, told executives: "We just purchased the largest classifieds site in the Netherlands for $290 million, what do you suppose we would pay for the largest classifieds site in the United States?" according to Craigslist’s lawsuit. Craigslist and eBay representatives declined to discuss the matter, citing the pending litigation.

Craigslist willingly found it didn’t like having of the like kind a close rival candidate put on its board. In less than three years, the eBay-Craigslist vagary tieup became a prompted by emulation incubus. In court of justice papers, eBay says Craigslist illegally constrained its influence by means of diluting eBay’s 28% put at hazard, eliminating its conclave seat, and inhibiting eBay’s parts to get the highest price in quest of its share of the company (BusinessWeek.com, 5/2/08). Craigslist is countersuing eBay (BusinessWeek.com, 5/13/08) for allegedly using its board position to launch a in the order of the signs U.S. competitor. Both companies seek rulings that would prevent the other from interfering in its business.

After years as the best-selling vehicle in the U.S., the F-150—and other pickups—will soon resign top spots to cars like the Toyota Camry

through Jim Henry

Watch full bigness video:

Ford

Could the Toyota Camry become the best-selling conveyance in the U.S.? It could fall out, if sales keep falling for large pickups, and cars keep climbing up the choose of Top 10-selling vehicles.

The Camry is already the No. 1-selling car in the U.S. market and has been for 10 of the past 11 years. The one exception was Honda’s (HMC) Accord in 2001, according to Automotive News. But on this account that totality that time, full-size pickups from General Motors (GM), Chrysler, and Ford (F) outsold the Camry and every other car by such a wide margin, it seemed that pickups could never subsist knocked from their bracket.

Above it all, the Ford F-150 and its ancestors have been the best-selling vehicles in the U.S. for 26 years in a row, and the best-selling truck for 31 years in a row, according to George Pipas, Ford’s U.S. sales analysis economist.

But as the big domestic pickups have fallen and Camry sales have slowly improved, the Camry has been closing the gap. For the month of April, the Camry outsold the perennial No. 2 overall, the Chevrolet Silverado, something that’s never happened for a replete year. The Camry has outsold the Dodge Ram pickup since 2006, at first by only a hardly any hundred units in a full year, but this year by more than 50,000 after alone four months.

Nobody until recently thought Toyota Motor ™ would outsell General Motors worldwide, one or the other, yet that happened last year.

In the U.S. place of traffic, gas prices, the housing meltdown, and changing consumer tastes have all combined to drag down sales of large pickups. The same high gas prices have made fuel-efficient cars more attractive, especially gasoline-electric hybrids like the Toyota Camry Hybrid. The hybrid model accounts for the entire 2008 improvement in Camry sales overall. The all-hybrid Toyota Prius isn’t in the overall Top 10 to this time, but it’s knocking on the door, and it was a Top 10-selling car last year. On May 15, Toyota reported in quest of the first lifetime that it had sold more than 1 million Priuses.

As freshly as 2004, the year gas prices started to ear, Ford sold other than 900,000 units of the F-Series pickup, outselling the Camry by more than 2-to-1. In 2008 the F-150 continues to outsell the Camry, however solitary by about 30% through April. That’s still a lot, but if the donative trend continues and the F-150 stays in free fall, those lines cross inside the next couple of years, and the Camry will outsell the F-150.

Watch full largeness video:

The roughly 3,000 people who gathered to vigil a live give food to of the results show at the EnergySolutions Arena were whipped into a frenzy every time the cameras cut to them by reason of the period of Wednesday night’s telecast, waving signs and bursting with sheer noise.

Then, in a word — “Cook” — it was as if all the air had been sucked out of the room.

The smooth-voiced, 17-year-old from Murray High School lost — by 12 million votes — to the 25-year-old David Cook of Blue Springs, Mo., in Wednesday night’s end.

Mouths dropped, eyes widened and several teenage girls hugged and cried when host Ryan Seacrest announced that the “Idol” crown went to: “David,” followed by a long break, “Cook!”

“Did you experience that?” said Skippy Jessop, 30, his homemade sign it being so that headed for the trash receptacle. “It felt like a punch in the gut. We all just stood there with our mouths hanging open.”

An early especially liked on the collide FOX television show, Archuleta’s star rose higher and higher each week of the same kind with fans and the program’s judges were moved by his sweet-sounding ballads and shy, gentle personality. His performances drove thousands to post praise without interruption the “Idol” notice boards and Internet social networking sites.

“It is a major fairy-tale,” Murray Mayor Dan Snarr said before the results were announced. “I used to see him sing at events around town and people used to pay him by feeding him dinner. Who woulda thought it would come to this? He literally used to sing in the place of food.”

Snarr isn’t alone in his unabashed pride. Friends and strangers have rallied around the diminutive Archuleta cheering each method of his prosperous issue.

“It’s certainly cool to drive through town and see signs for him all over. He’s veritably brought the common together,” said Molly Hutcheson, 18, a Murray High cheerleader.

Fans poured out the love Wednesday ignorance, sporting homemade T-shirts and signs proclaiming their devotion, proposing marriage and nominating “Archie for President.”

Trisha Webber’s sign boasted 602 text-message votes for Archuleta — all of them sent during Tuesday night’s last showdown.

“If everyone in hither did that, that should be enough,” she said hopefully before the show. “He’s the better minstrel. He’s more versatile. He can sing the phone part.”

Afterward, a depressed Webber said she was stunned by the 12 million-vote shortage. that gave Cook the title.

“Everyone in that stadium needed to ballot 1,000 more times,” the legal assistant said. “It hurts.”

But Webber and others say this won’t have being the last memorandum from Utah’s newest favorite son. They said they await Archuleta’s star to keep rising.

“He’s still a winner with respect to sure,” said Cecily Estrada, 19, who attended Murray High with Archuleta. “He’s gonna be big no matter the kind of.”