Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

среда

The daily lowdown on books, publishing, and the occasional author behaving badly.

The words that so many ears know so well will soon be getting a place on the printed page — 1,034 pages, as a matter of fact. The songs of Bob Dylan have been compiled, annotated and illustrated in a collection so comprehensive, it could take some strength just to lift.

Set for publication on Oct. 28, The Lyrics: Since 1962 is the product of a collaboration between Dylan and Christopher Ricks, a British literary scholar and professor at Boston College. Ricks tells The New York Times that in his annotations, he aimed to point out the places where Dylan's songs changed over the singer's considerable career. Ricks says of Dylan's songs, "They're amazing, shape-changing things."

Only 3,000 copies will be printed, and they'll sell for $200 each at bookstores. Fifty signed copies of the book will also go for $5,000 each.

Sinead Takes To The Page: Not to be outdone, Sinead O'Connor has announced an upcoming book of her own — an as-yet untitled memoir slated for March 2016. And for those readers with a taste for a tell-all, never fear: There will be dirt. In a press release, the Irish singer says, "I look forward to dishing the sexual dirt on everyone I've ever slept with."

Grammarians, Stand Down: Relax, everyone. If you think you need to split an infinitive or even — God forbid — leave a modifier dangling, Steven Pinker's given you the green light. The chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary tells the New Republic that many grammar rules were born more from habit than necessity. "If you look at the grammar of English," he says, "you find that there is no rule that prohibits a dangling modifier. ... You find that it was pretty much pulled out of thin air by one usage guide a century ago and copied into every one since."

Superman Denied: The Supreme Court has declined to review a recent challenge lodged against Warner Brothers' claims of ownership over Superman. Brought by heirs of Joseph Shuster, co-creator of the Man of Steel, the decade-long challenge contested an agreement that DC Comics — a subsidiary of Warner Bros. — and Shuster's sister made at the time of Shuster's death, which resolved "any past, present or future claims against DC." In the lower-court decision against Shuster's heirs, says The Hollywood Reporter, a federal judge ruled that "the broad and all-encompassing language of the 1992 Agreement unmistakably operates to supersede all prior grants."

Against Funding Writers: In The Guardian, Allison Flood points to some choice words from Horace Engdahl, a member of the 18-person Swedish Academy that will decide the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature on Thursday. Speaking with the French newspaper La Croix, Engdahl laments the scholarships and grants that have turned the role of the writer into a profession: "Even though I understand the temptation, I think it cuts writers off from society, and creates an unhealthy link with institutions. Previously, writers would work as taxi drivers, clerks, secretaries and waiters to make a living. ... It was hard — but they fed themselves, from a literary perspective."

Book News

Superman

Bob Dylan

books

Janet and Jaqueline Timal are 40-something-year-old sisters, and they have what they call a plastic surgery fund.

"I'm always saving money. When I see I've gathered up enough money for another surgery I do it," Jaqueline says.

She has had breast implants put in and also a tummy tuck. She's visiting the plastic surgeon's office again to do a famed Brazilian butt lift, which is the same as a breast lift, but on your backside. Janet has had a tummy tuck; she's now doing her breasts, too. Between them, they will have had five surgeries.

Explore The Series

The Changing Lives Of Women

Janet and Jaqueline aren't rich — far from it. One works at a retirement home; the other owns a small shop.

They both say this isn't about bankrupting themselves for beauty but rather the opposite — Jaqueline says she sees the procedures as an investment.

"I think we invest in beauty because this is very important for women here. You can get a better job because here they want a good appearance, a better marriage because men care about the way you look," she says.

Brazil has just surpassed the U.S. as the place with the most cosmetic surgeries performed in the world, even though it has fewer people and collectively less disposable income than the U.S.

Last year, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 1.5 million cosmetic surgeries were carried out in Brazil — 13 percent of all the elective plastic surgeries done all over the world.

One reason is that Brazil simply has more plastic surgeons per capita than the U.S. There's a health care crisis in Brazil that has led the country to import doctors from Cuba to work in rural and poor areas. Yet there's a surfeit of plastic surgeons.

The other reason is women's increasing financial power. In the past 10 years, Brazil has grown economically, and salaries and disposable income have gone up. Women like the Timal sisters have overwhelmingly chosen to use that money on their appearance.

While in the U.S., people may hide that they have had plastic surgery like it's something shameful, in Brazil they flaunt it. The attitude is that having work done shows you care about yourself — and it's a status symbol.

But even though people have more money and greater access to credit, many of the poor wouldn't be able to afford to pay for all of their cosmetic procedures unless they got a helping hand.

'The Right To Dream'

The Ivo Pitanguy Institute in Rio de Janeiro is named after the famous Brazilian plastic surgeon who is renowned for saying, "The poor have the right to be beautiful too."

i i

Maria da Gloria de Sousa, 46, has had six surgeries at the Pitanguy Institute. "First off, I do this for me. These kind of things you need to do for yourself. And second, there's nothing better than getting a compliment, right? That you're good, that you're sexy, it's really good. I like it." Jimmy Chalk for NPR hide caption

itoggle caption Jimmy Chalk for NPR

Maria da Gloria de Sousa, 46, has had six surgeries at the Pitanguy Institute. "First off, I do this for me. These kind of things you need to do for yourself. And second, there's nothing better than getting a compliment, right? That you're good, that you're sexy, it's really good. I like it."

Jimmy Chalk for NPR

Here the ethos is beauty shouldn't just be a privilege of those who can afford it.

The institute's lobby is packed as attendants call out the names of women — and a few men — who are waiting to be evaluated for cosmetic surgeries. This is a charity and teaching hospital, and the surgeries given are either free of charge or heavily subsidized.

The hospital offers all the usual fare: breast implants, breast lifts, Botox, nose jobs, face lifts and, of course, the ever-popular butt implant.

This is where the Timal sisters are having their surgeries. The price for Jaqueline's butt lift? It's 3,800 reals, about $1,600. At a private hospital it could run over three times that.

Francesco Mazzarone, who now heads the institute, explains why it's important to provide cosmetic surgeries to the disadvantaged.

"This is about equality, which is the philosophy Pitanguy created. Equal rights to everyone. The patients come here to get back something they lost in time. We give to them the right to dream," he says. "What we do here is altruism."

And the women NPR spoke with are grateful, but they also acknowledge that there is a lot of pressure in Brazil to conform to a physical ideal.

“ The patients come here to get back something they lost in time. We give to them the right to dream.

- Francesco Mazzarone of the Ivo Pitanguy Institute

Jaqueline Timal says her 21-year-old daughter has already had liposuction.

"I told her she should wait, but to be very beautiful, we push ourselves — and also society pushes us. I think she is too young for that, but as it was her great desire, I supported [her] so she can be happy," she says.

Some in Brazil, though, balk at the idea that happiness can be achieved at the end of a scalpel.

Being a feminist is a lonely business in Brazil, says Karen Polaz, a blogger and women's rights activist. She says despite the fact that Brazil has a female president, it's still a very sexist country. She says beauty as a right sounds good in principle; what that means in practice is that a very narrow view of what is beautiful is being pushed onto people here.

"Before accepting the idea that everyone has the right to be beautiful, we have to understand the image of beauty that is being sold, because this is an industry, an extremely lucrative industry. They transform women into consumers," she says.

And in Brazil, that transformation has a racial component.

What's Sold As Beautiful

Brazil imported more slaves, some 4 million, than any other country. Today, it is a primarily a mixed-race country, but you wouldn't know that by looking on TV and in magazines here, which rarely feature people of color.

“ If you look at the traditional body type of a Brazilian, you would see a woman with dark skin, curly hair, small breasts and a larger bottom, a body that is very different from the body marketed as desirable.

- Marcelo Silva Ramos, anthropologist and social scientist

"If you look at the traditional body type of a Brazilian, you would see a woman with dark skin, curly hair, small breasts and a larger bottom, a body that is very different from the body marketed as desirable," says Marcelo Silva Ramos, an anthropologist and social scientist.

He says what is sold as beautiful here is someone like Brazilian model Gisele Bundchen: a woman who is tall, thin, blond with straight hair, bigger breasts and fewer curves. That has meant people who don't look the right way — and by this he means "the white way" — are often excluded, he says.

"In our culture, the view is women who look acceptable get money, social mobility, power," he says.

Take for example the popular Miss Bumbum contest, which annually crowns Brazil's best backside. All of the contestants this year are lighter skinned.

Claudia Alende, the 22-year-old front-runner of this year's competition, looks like American actress Megan Fox, right down to the blue contact lenses she wears over her natural brown eyes. She says she is competing for a simple reason.

Loading

Academia na madrugada

View on Instagram

"The contest is famous around the world, and I want to be recognized around the world and become famous, too," she says, laughing.

She says the contest is a way for her to become a TV presenter or an actress. The rules of the contest allow for plastic surgery anywhere but on the backside. She openly admits she's had work done.

"It was [because] everyone was doing [it] so I did [it]," she says.

Previous Miss Bumbum contestants have indeed gone on to arguably bigger and better things. One became a TV presenter; others have become actors and professional dancers on TV. But they are among the few.

Maria da Gloria de Sousa is 46 but looks 30. She's unemployed but has had six surgeries at the Pitanguy Institute and speaks about her procedures with characteristic Brazilian humor and openness.

i i

"Plastic surgery starts to become an addiction. You're born perfect, but then you have children and you know what having children does. Then suddenly comes the rebirth: plastic surgery. You can be beautiful, even more beautiful than you were before." — Maria da Gloria de Sousa, 46. Jimmy Chalk for NPR hide caption

itoggle caption Jimmy Chalk for NPR

"Plastic surgery starts to become an addiction. You're born perfect, but then you have children and you know what having children does. Then suddenly comes the rebirth: plastic surgery. You can be beautiful, even more beautiful than you were before." — Maria da Gloria de Sousa, 46.

Jimmy Chalk for NPR

"I'm almost an android! I had done my breasts three times. I didn't stop there. I did a tummy tuck and then a lipo, and, lastly, I did my bottom," she says.

She says she has spent the equivalent of the cost of three cars on her operations.

"I'm much happier, there is no doubt about it. My bottom will never sag, my breasts will never sag. They will always be there, hard. It is very good to look at the mirror and feel fine," she says.

When I ask her if it was all worth it, she tells me she has a 21-year-old lover.

"Things have gotten a lot better," she quips.

She waves goodbye and, smiling, sashays down the beach — and nothing jiggles.

You can follow NPR's South America correspondent Lourdes Garcia-Navarro @lourdesgnavarro.

Technically, the Supreme Court Monday did not establish a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. It merely declined an opportunity to rule definitely one way or the other on the question.

But in the not-too-long run, the consequences may well be the same. Because the situation the court created — or acknowledged — will almost surely continue trending in favor of same-sex couples who want to marry.

Conversely, the legal ground is eroding for states that want to stop such marriages or deny them legal recognition.

As thousands more same-sex couples marry all over the country, this legal climate change becomes a kind of fait accompli.

For the moment, the court's denial of review means state-enacted bans on same-sex marriage in five states were wiped off the books. The denial meant lower court rulings that spiked those bans will now stand. Let's call them The Five.

So couples in The Five could begin marrying regardless of gender as of today — and some got licenses immediately.

In six other states that had banned the practice, further legal proceedings may be needed to apply the rulings of the relevant federal circuit courts of appeal. But because these six are connected to The Five through the federal circuit system (jurisdictions for the purpose of appealing federal court decisions) the same judgment will apply. Effectuating that judgment in these six states is a short step — and one that is already in motion.

Then they will be just like The Five.

That will bring the number of states where gay marriage has been legalized, either by the state itself or through these federal cases, to 30. And these states are home to the vast majority of the national population.

There are still ways for the Supreme Court to reassert itself in this debate. But the question is, do they want to?

Many legal experts have looked over the landscape and perceived both a trend in the federal system and a signal from the nine justices who sit at its zenith.

Amy Howe, the editor of the highly regarded SCOTUSBlog, told NPR's Nina Totenberg that the justices "are very smart people" and added, "I don't think they're going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle."

The genie got out back in June 2013, when the court decided Windsor v. United States, throwing out the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. By smacking down this pivotal federal statute, the court threw wide the gates for other challenges to state laws barring gay marriage or otherwise treating gays differently.

Now, as those challenges come in waves, the federal courts at all levels are applying the reasoning from Windsor with great consistency.

If the high court wanted to use that as an occasion to declare a constitutional right, it could have taken one or more of the cases it denied today. But opponents of gay marriage had hoped the court would take such a case for precisely the opposite reason — to uphold the states' right to ban gay marriage.

Instead, Howe observes, the justices instructed their confreres at lower levels of the pyramid to "keep on doing what you're doing."

In other words, there isn't a clear majority of the nine to settle the matter with a landmark ruling one way or the other.

They could choose to re-enter the fray at some later point, perhaps when another circuit court of appeals weighs in with a ruling that supports the state's right to ban gay marriage. That would at least create a conflict for the Supreme Court to resolve.

Or it could revisit the issue later, perhaps when a clear majority has formed either to prohibit gay marriage or to permit it. That might require waiting until Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on such issues, declares himself. Or it could await the next retirement of a sitting justice and the confirmation of a successor.

But as the number of legal gay marriages skyrockets, and the practice becomes both legal and common across most of the states and most of the population, a future court is less and less likely to rescind it.

Or even take such a case.

U.S. Supreme Court

gay marriage

Democrats this election have done a good job attracting a lot of big donors, but Republicans appear to have the big advantage when it comes to big secret donors.

The strength of Democratic House and Senate fundraising committees — and their supporting superPACs — has been a surprise development this cycle, even as the Senate seems poised to flip to Republican control and the House is almost certain to remain under GOP leadership.

Now Republicans will get even more help from their big guns from the past two elections: the tax-exempt nonprofit groups Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS.

Americans for Prosperity, founded by the industrialist billionaire Koch brothers, has already been running tens of millions worth of ads attacking Democratic senators in key states. Now it says it will also run ads specifically telling voters to defeat those Democrats on Nov. 4. It will not reveal how much it intends to spend, but earlier media reports suggest the group's total outlays this election could be near $300 million, although that figure includes voter registration and turnout efforts.

Crossroads GPS, co-founded by GOP operative Karl Rove, is on track to raise some $75 million this election, according to spokesman Paul Lindsay, and will spend at least $23 million of that in the final two months of the campaign in six states, including $9.5 million in Colorado alone.

Democrats and liberals, in contrast, have focused on superPACs that disclose the name of every donor who gives more than $200. Tom Steyer, the San Francisco investor and climate change activist, has given $40.9 million to his NextGen Climate Action Committee and $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, according to an NPR review of Federal Election Commission records. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has donated $6.9 million to his pro-gun control Independence USA PAC and $2 million to Emily's List's Women Vote superPAC.

The 10 Biggest Super PAC Donors To Date

Donor

Super PAC

Amount

Thomas Steyer

NextGen Climate Action

$40,900,000

Michael Bloomberg

Independence USA PAC

$6,860,912

NextGen Climate Action

Senate Majority PAC

$5,500,000

Thomas Steyer

Senate Majority PAC

$5,000,000

Fred Eychaner

Senate Majority PAC

$5,000,000

Senate Majority PAC

Put Alaska First

$4,663,000

Michael Bloomberg

Senate Majority PAC

$2,500,000

Fred Eychaner

House Majority PAC

$2,500,000

Working for Working Americans

Senate Majority PAC

$2,250,000

Michael Bloomberg

Women Vote (EMILY's List)

$2,000,000

Source: NPR analysis of Federal Election Commission data

But in terms of groups that keep their donors secret, Patriot Majority USA and the League of Conservation Voters are the only Democratic-leaning nonprofits that have spent more than $1 million on election-related activity so far, with each reporting about $7 million in spending to the FEC.

How much these politically oriented nonprofit groups will actually raise and spend won't be known until next spring, when their annual filings to the Internal Revenue Service come due. But while those documents show how much was raised and how it was spent, the names of the donors will likely remain secret forever. That actually is the only advantage for donors — there is no tax deduction or other financial benefit to giving to these groups rather than to superPACs.

In the 2012 election cycle, for example, Crossroads GPS spent $71 million on ads directly advocating against a Democratic candidate or for a Republican one. But it spent $94 million on ads attacking President Obama and Democratic members of Congress.

The difference between the two approaches might be unnoticeable to the typical voter. A so-called "issue ad" will recite all the terrible things a senator has done, and then urge viewers to call that senator's office to register their displeasure. An "express advocacy" ad will recite those same terrible things, but then tell the viewer to vote that senator out of office.

Though slight, the distinction makes all the difference in the world, at least in the way the FEC and the IRS interpret election and tax law. By using words like "vote" or "defeat" or "elect," an ad is seen as attempting to sway an election. Ads that don't use those words are merely educating the public on "issues." The IRS has ruled that nonprofit groups must spend the majority of their money on "social welfare" functions — such as educating the public — in order to maintain the tax status that enables them to keep their donors' names secret.

Advocates of campaign finance reform and many Democrats argue that the loophole allows the wealthy to influence elections without public accountability, thereby undermining the "who-gave-who-got" premise behind disclosure laws. Many conservatives argue that disclosure laws unfairly silence their donors because they fear public criticism and boycotts of their businesses.

Senate Majority PAC

Crossroads GPS

Blog Archive